MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect of Patient-Reported Preprocedural Physical and Mental Health on 10-Year Mortality After Percutaneous or Surgical Coronary Revascularization

2022· article· en· W4286588843 on OpenAlexaff
Masafumi Ono, Patrick W. Serruys, Scot Garg, Hideyuki Kawashima, Chao Gao, Hironori Hara, Mattia Lunardi, Rutao Wang, Neil O’Leary, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska, Jan J. Piek, Michael J. Mack, David R. Holmes, Marie‐Claude Morice, A. Pieter Kappetein, Daniel J.F.M. Thuijs, Thilo Noack, Friedrich W. Mohr, Piroze Davierwala, John A. Spertus, David J. Cohen, Yoshinobu Onuma

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionHazard ratioCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineRevascularizationClinical endpointCardiologySubgroup analysisRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Clinical and anatomical characteristics are often considered key factors in deciding between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) such as left-main CAD or 3-vessel disease. However, little is known about the interaction between self-reported preprocedural physical/mental health and clinical outcomes after revascularization. Methods: This subgroup analysis of the SYNTAXES trial (SYNTAX Extended Survival), which is the extended follow-up of the randomized SYNTAX trial (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) comparing PCI with CABG in patients with left-main CAD or 3-vessel disease, stratified patients by terciles of Physical (PCS) or Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores derived from the preprocedural 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, with higher PCS and MCS scores representing better physical and mental health, respectively. The primary end point was all-cause death at 10 years. Results: A total of 1656 patients with preprocedural 36-Item Short Form Health Survey data were included in the present study. Both higher PCS and MCS were independently associated with lower 10-year mortality (10-point increase in PCS adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73–0.97]; P =0.021; in MCS adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76–0.95]; P =0.005). A significant survival benefit with CABG over PCI was observed in the highest PCS (>45.5) and MCS (>52.3) terciles with significant treatment-by-subgroup interactions (PCS P interaction =0.033, MCS P interaction =0.015). In patients with both high PCS (>45.5) and MCS (>52.3), 10-year mortality was significantly higher with PCI compared with CABG (30.5% versus 12.2%; hazard ratio, 2.87 [95% CI, 1.55–5.30]; P =0.001), whereas among those with low PCS (≤45.5) or low MCS (≤52.3), there were no significant differences in 10-year mortality between PCI and CABG, resulting in a significant treatment-by-subgroup interaction ( P interaction =0.002). Conclusions: Among patients with left-main CAD or 3-vessel disease, patient-reported preprocedural physical and mental health status was strongly associated with long-term mortality and modified the relative treatment effects of PCI versus CABG. Patients with the best physical and mental health had better 10-year survival with CABG compared with PCI. Assessment of self-reported physical and mental health is important when selecting the optimal revascularization strategy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; SYNTAXES Unique identifier: NCT03417050. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; SYNTAX Unique identifier: NCT00114972.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→