Effects of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure and Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on the clinical outcomes of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) complicated with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF) through meta-analysis. METHODS: Three major literature databases - PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane - were searched by search terms and the literature retrieval time was publications dating from January 2007 to December 2021. To search for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the efficacy of PCI and CABG in patients with CHD and HFrEF, the abstract or full text of the literature was read and the final included literature was determined, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using the Ottawa scale and data extraction was further completed. Data analysis was made using RevMan5.4 and R4.1 software; relevant forest plots and funnel plots were made, according to the extracted data. Egger's test was used to evaluate whether the data had publication bias. Outcomes were the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included and 11,032 subjects were included, made up of 5,521 cases of PCI and 5,511 cases of CABG. The results showed no significant difference between the two groups in cardiac mortality (CM) (RR=1.13, 95% CI 0.98-1.30, P = 0.10) and in overall all-cause mortality (ACM) (RR=1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.37, P = 0.25). In the subgroup analysis of ACM, in the subgroups with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 35% and exceeding 35% and less than 50% (RR=1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.37, P = 0.25) between the two groups, there was no statistical difference. However, among other MACE, compared with the PCI group, the CABG group had a lower risk of MACE (RR=1.58, 95%CI 1.49-1.70, P < 0.00001), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR=1.99, 95% CI 1.02-3.88, P = 0.04), heart failure (HF) (RR=1.29, 95% CI 1.17-1.43, P < 0.00001) and revascularization (RR=2.74, 95% CI 1.93-3.90, P < 0.00001). Finally in the CABG group, the risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) was higher (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86, P = 0.0006) than the PCI group. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rates of PCI and CABG were similar in patients with CHD complicated with HFrEF. Compared with PCI, CABG had a lower incidence of MACE, MI, HF, and revascularization, and a higher incidence of stroke or TIA.
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 | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.068 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".