Quality of Life After Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI Compared With Coronary Bypass Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that quality of life improves after coronary revascularization more so after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) than after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of fractional flow reserve guidance and current generation, zotarolimus drug-eluting stents on quality of life after PCI compared with CABG. METHODS: The FAME 3 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) is a multicenter, international trial including 1500 patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease who were randomly assigned to either CABG or fractional flow reserve-guided PCI. Quality of life was measured using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire at baseline and 1 and 12 months. The Canadian Cardiovascular Class angina grade and working status were assessed at the same time points and at 6 months. The primary objective was to compare EQ-5D summary index at 12 months. Secondary end points included angina grade and work status. RESULTS: <0.001) between PCI and CABG: at 1 month, EQ-5D was 0.063 (95% CI, 0.047 to 0.079) higher in the PCI group. A similar trajectory was found for the EQ (EuroQol) visual analogue scale. The proportion of patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Class 2 or greater angina at 12 months was 6.2% versus 3.1% (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.96-6.8]), respectively, in the PCI group compared with the CABG group. A greater percentage of younger patients (<65 years old) were working at 12 months in the PCI group compared with the CABG group (68% versus 57%; odds ratio, 3.9 [95% CI, 1.7-8.8]). CONCLUSIONS: In the FAME 3 trial, quality of life after fractional flow reserve-guided PCI with current generation drug-eluting stents compared with CABG was similar at 1 year. The rate of significant angina was low in both groups and not significantly different. The trajectory of improvement in quality of life was significantly better after PCI, as was working status in those <65 years old. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02100722.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".