Impact of Intracoronary Imaging‐Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Procedural Outcomes Among Complex Patient Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Intracoronary imaging (ICI) has been shown to improve survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this prognostic benefit is sustained across different indications remains unclear. Methods and Results All PCI procedures performed in England and Wales between April, 2014 and March 31, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. The association between ICI use and in-hospital major acute cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events; composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and reinfarction and mortality was examined using multivariable logistic regression analysis for different imaging-recommended indications as set by European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions consensus. Of 555 398 PCI procedures, 10.8% (n=59 752) were ICI-guided. ICI use doubled between 2014 (7.8%) and 2020 (17.5%) and was highest in left main PCI (41.2%) and lowest in acute coronary syndrome (9%). Only specific European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions imaging-recommended indications were associated with reduced major acute cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and mortality, including left main PCI (odds ratio [OR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.39-0.52] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.35-0.48], respectively), acute coronary syndrome (OR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.70-0.82] and 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63-0.77]), and stent length >60 mm (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59-0.94] and 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54-0.95]). Stent thrombosis and renal failure were associated with lower mortality (OR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52-0.91]) and major acute cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60-0.99]), respectively. Conclusions ICI use has more than doubled over a 7-year period at a national level but remains low, with <1 in 5 procedures performed under ICI guidance. In-hospital survival was better with ICI-guided than angiography-guided PCI, albeit only for specific indications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".