Survival outcomes and adverse events in patients with chronic kidney disease after coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matching studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present meta-analysis of propensity score-matching studies aimed to compare the long-term survival outcomes and adverse events associated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing CABG and PCI in patients with CKD. The search period extended to 13 February 2021. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to express the pooled effect. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3. Thirteen studies involving 18,005 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Long-term mortality risk was significantly lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.70–0.83, <i>p</i> < .001), and similar results were observed in the subgroup analysis of patients undergoing dialysis and for different estimated glomerular filtration rate ranges. The incidence rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12–0.54, <i>p</i> < .001) and revascularization (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.08–0.35, <i>p</i> < .001) were lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group, although there were no significant differences in the incidence of stroke between the two groups (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.89–1.73, <i>p</i> > .05). Subgroup analysis among patients on dialysis yielded similar results. Our propensity score matching analysis revealed that, based on long-term follow-up outcomes, CABG remains superior to PCI in patients with CKD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".