Rates of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in England and Wales: Impact of COURAGE and ORBITA Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There are limited data about how COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) and ORBITA (Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina) trials have impacted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practices at regional or national level. We evaluated temporal trends in elective PCI rates for stable angina and, specifically, examined the impact of the COURAGE and ORBITA trials on PCI practices in England and Wales. Methods and Results We used national PCI data comprising >1.2 million patients undergoing PCI between January 2006 and December 2019. Patient demographics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed, and temporal trends in PCI rates for stable angina were compared before and after the publication of the COURAGE and ORBITA trials. Of 1 245 802 PCI procedures, 430 248 (34.5%) were performed for stable angina. Over the study period, the number of elective PCI procedures per year (30 823 in 2006 to 34 103 in 2019) and per 100 000 population estimates (50.7 in 2006 to 58.4 in 2019) remained stable. The proportion of patients undergoing elective PCI without angina symptoms almost doubled from 5.1% to 9.7%. The incidence rate of elective PCI volume after the COURAGE trial, published in 2007, was not different from before the trial was published (incidence rate ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.69-1.62]). It also remained stable after the publication of the ORBITA trial in 2017 (incidence rate ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.74-1.23]). Conclusions In this nationwide analysis, rates of elective PCI for stable angina remained stable over 14 years. Publication of the COURAGE and ORBITA trials had no impact on elective PCI activity.
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 | 0.045 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".