Long-term outcomes following ostial left anterior descending artery intervention with or without crossover to left-main.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ostial left anterior descending (LAD) artery lesions are a critical area for coronary stenting, given that the location subtends a large area of the myocardium and can also be more technically challenging. It remains controversial whether crossover stenting of ostial LAD back into the left-main (LM) is advantageous over stenting the ostium alone. METHODS: To evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of stenting ostial LAD lesions, we retrospectively reviewed all ostial LAD lesions cases at QEII Health Science Centre between 2008 and 2018. Specifically, we compared the outcomes in those patients that had left main stent crossover vs. ostial stenting (OS) alone. RESULTS: The total number of patients included in the study was 175, with 25 patients (14%) having a crossover to the LM and 150 (86%) having OS. There were more patients with previous CABG (24%) in the crossover group compared to the OS group (9.2%) (P = 0.042). The one-year MACE was not significantly different between CO vs. OS (13.3% (10.5-16.1) vs. 12% (5.5-18.5)). The five-year MACE was numerically higher, although statistically not significant, in CO vs. OS (19.3 (15.9-22.7) vs. 25.9 (16.6-35.2)). CONCLUSION: This study shows that percutaneous intervention provides reasonable long-term outcomes and low rates of repeat revascularization for isolated ostial LAD lesions, with no noticeable difference in outcomes with crossover stenting into the LM vs. OS alone. A larger, prospective study may be required to determine the optimal strategy for treating ostial LAD lesions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".