Left Main Stem Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Does On-Site Surgical Cover Make a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical centers (NSC) contribute significantly to the capacity of overall percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United Kingdom. Although previous studies have demonstrated similar PCI outcomes in surgical centers (SC) versus NSC, it is unknown whether this applies to more complex procedures such as left main stem (LMS) PCI. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes of LMS PCI performed across SC and NSC in England and Wales. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of procedures between January 2006 and March 2020 was performed using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database and stratified according to the surgical status of the center. The primary outcomes assessed were in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, all-cause mortality, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium stage 3 to 5 bleeding. RESULTS: Forty thousand seven hundred forty-four patients underwent LMS PCI during the period, of which 13 922 (34.2%) had their procedure performed at an NSC. The proportion of LMS PCI performed in NSC increased >2-fold (15.9% in 2006 to 36.7% in 2020). There was no association between surgical cover location and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.69-1.22]), in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.79-1.25]), or emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.06]). NSC had lower Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 to 5 bleeding complications (odds ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.34-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in LMS PCI volumes at NSC, particularly elective LMS PCI. LMS PCI performed at NSC was not associated with increased mortality, in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, or emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery, despite higher disease complexity.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".