MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310241098 · doi:10.1161/jaha.122.026960

Procedural Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Focal and Diffuse Coronary Artery Disease

2022· article· en· W4310241098 on OpenAlexaff
Takuya Mizukami, Jeroen Sonck, Koshiro Sakai, Brian Ko, Michael Mæng, Hiromasa Otake, Bon‐Kwon Koo, Sakura Nagumo, Bjarne Linde Nørgaard, Jonathon Leipsic, Toshiro Shinke, Daniel Munhoz, Niya Mileva, Marta Belmonte, Hirofumi Ohashi, Emanuele Barbato, Nils P. Johnson, Bernard De Bruyne, Carlos Collet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyInternal medicinePercutaneousPercutaneous coronary interventionPsychological interventionLeft main coronary artery diseaseRadiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Coronary artery disease (CAD) patterns play an essential role in the decision‐making process about revascularization. The pullback pressure gradient (PPG) quantifies CAD patterns as either focal or diffuse based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) pullbacks. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CAD patterns on acute percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results considered surrogates of clinical outcomes. Methods and Results This was a prospective, multicenter study of patients with hemodynamically significant CAD undergoing PCI. Motorized FFR pullbacks and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed before and after PCI. Post‐PCI FFR >0.90 was considered an optimal result. Focal disease was defined as PPG >0.73 (highest PPG tertile). Overall, 113 patients (116 vessels) were included. Patients with focal disease were younger than those with diffuse CAD (61.4±9.9 versus 65.1±8.7 years, P =0.042). PCI in vessels with high PPG (focal CAD) resulted in higher post‐PCI FFR (0.91±0.07 in the focal group versus 0.86±0.05 in the diffuse group, P <0.001) and larger minimal stent area (6.3±2.3 mm 2 in focal versus 5.3±1.8 mm 2 in diffuse CAD, P =0.015) compared withvessels with low PPG (diffuse CAD). The PPG was associated with the change in FFR after PCI ( R 2 =0.51, P <0.001). The PPG significantly improved the capacity to predict optimal PCI results compared with an angiographic assessment of CAD patterns (area under the curve PPG 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73–0.88] versus area under the curve angio 0.51 [95% CI, 0.42–0.60]; P <0.001). Conclusions PCI in vessels with focal disease defined by the PPG resulted in greater improvement in epicardial conductance and larger minimal stent area compared with diffuse disease. PPG, but not angiographically defined CAD patterns, distinguished patients attaining superior procedural outcomes. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03782688

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207