Quality of life of patients with coronary heart disease treated with the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (ABSORB™): 2-year results from the GABI-R-registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have reported clinical endpoints following coronary revascularization using bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS), while information about the impact on health-related quality of life is sparse. In this analysis of the German-Austrian ABSORB RegIstRy, the 2 year results concerning quality of life development in a large cohort of patients treated with BVS were reported. METHODS: Data were collected at baseline as well as 30 days, 6 and 24 months after coronary revascularization using BVS. The EQ-5D score, EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) were determined for each time point. Patients were categorized according to the indication for coronary revascularization [acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stable angina pectoris (SAP), silent myocardial ischemia (SMI), or other]. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors that predict above-average scores two years after implantation. RESULTS: Data from 1317 patients in 88 centres were included. Reasons for revascularization were: ACS (n = 643), SAP (n = 443), SMI (n = 52), and other (n = 179). Mean EQ-5D was significantly increased after six months, while a value comparable to baseline was found two years after implantation. EQ VAS and four of five dimensions of SAQ were significantly improved over baseline at all follow-up surveys. Particularly strong improvements were seen in SAQ scores angina frequency and quality of life. Binary regressions showed different statistically significant predictors in the respective models. CONCLUSIONS: Following coronary revascularization with BVS strong decrease in self-reported angina frequency and increase of self-reported quality of life were observed with continuous improvements over two years of follow-up. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02066623.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".