FFRCT and recurrent symptoms in patients with stable chest pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The major benefit of coronary revascularization when compared with optimal medical treatment (OMT) in patients with stable chest pain (CP) relates to improvement of symptoms and reduction of reinterventions. Non-invasive methods are warranted to discriminate between patients at low and high risk of recurrent CP for subsequent guidance of antianginal treatment (invasive or OMT). Purpose To evaluate the association between coronary CT angiography (CTA) derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT), recurrent CP and quality of life (QOL) in patients with new onset stable CP and stenosis by CTA. Methods Multicenter cohort 3-year follow-up sub-study of 769 patients from the Assessing Diagnostic Value of Non-invasive FFRCT in Coronary Care (ADVANCE) registry at three Danish sites, the “ADVANCE-DK Registry”. All patients had at least one ≥30% coronary stenosis by CTA and underwent subsequent core laboratory FFRCT analysis by HeartFlow. An abnormal FFRCT was defined as the lowest in vessel FFRCT value ≤0.80. Patients were classified according to completeness of revascularization by FFRCT: 1) completely revascularized (CR-FFRCT), all coronary arteries with an abnormal FFRCT test result revascularized; 2) incompletely revascularized (IR-FFRCT), ≥1 coronary artery with an abnormal FFRCT test result not revascularized. All patients completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7), the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and graded (0–100) overall health using the EQ VAS scale at 3-year follow-up. Recurrent CP was defined as CP within the last 4 weeks prior to this follow-up. Results Patient characteristics are given in Table 1. At follow-up 23% patients reported recurrent CP. An abnormal vs a normal FFRCT increased the risk of recurrent CP, 27% vs 15%, RR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.31–2.52, p<0.001. Amongst patients with abnormal FFRCT, revascularization (+/−) was associated to a numerical, but not statistical significantly, reduced risk of recurrent CP, 23% vs 30%, RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56–1.03, p=0.07. IR-FFRCT vs CR-FFRCT had a higher risk for recurrent CP, 31% vs 13%, RR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.48–3.68, p<0.001, whilst no difference was observed for CR-FFRCT vs normal FFRCT, 13% vs 15%, RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.54–1.54, p=0.74. IR-FFRCT vs CR-FFRCT or normal FFRCT, had lower SAQ-7, EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS scores, Table 1, all p<0.005. Scores for three selected SAQ-7 domains are shown in Figure 1. Use of antianginal medicine was higher in IR-FFRCT compared to CR-FFRCT and normal FFRCT, mean ± SD: 1.2±0.05 vs 1.0±0.04, p=0.02. Conclusion An abnormal FFRCT identifies patients with an increased risk of recurrent CP up to 3 years after index testing. Completeness of revascularization by FFRCT reclassifies patients with abnormal FFRCT into groups with low and high risk for recurrent CP and impaired QOL. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".