Percutaneous coronary intervention of native coronary artery versus saphenous vein graft in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Rationale and design of the multicenter, randomized PROCTOR trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) frequently require repeat percutaneous revascularization due to advanced age, progressive coronary artery disease and bypass graft failure. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of either the bypass graft or the native coronary artery may be performed. Randomized trials comparing native vessel PCI with bypass graft PCI are lacking and long-term outcomes have not been reported. METHODS: PROCTOR (NCT03805048) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, that will include 584 patients presenting with saphenous vein graft (SVG) failure and a clinical indication for revascularization, as determined by the local Heart Team. The trial is designed to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients randomly allocated in a 1:1 fashion to either a strategy of native vessel PCI or SVG PCI. The primary study endpoint is a 3-year composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: all-cause mortality, non-fatal target coronary territory myocardial infarction [MI], or clinically driven target coronary territory revascularization). At 3-years, after evaluation of the primary endpoint, follow-up invasive coronary angiography will be performed. Secondary endpoints comprise individual components of MACE at 1, 3 and 5 years follow-up, PCI-related MI, MI >48 hours after index PCI, target vessel failure, target lesion revascularization, renal failure requiring renal-replacement therapy, angiographic outcomes at 3-years and quality of life (delta Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Grading Scale and Rose Dyspnea Scale). CONCLUSION: PROCTOR is the first randomized trial comparing an invasive strategy of native coronary artery PCI with SVG PCI in post-CABG patients presenting with SVG failure.
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 | 0.032 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".