Prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography compared to radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging in patients With coronary stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study is to compare the prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in predicting cardiovascular events in patients with stents. Design Retrospective analysis. Setting University Hospital, London, Ontario Canada. Participants Between January 2007 and December 2018, 119 patients post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who were referred for hybrid imaging with CTA and 2-day rest/stress SPECT were enrolled. Primary and secondary outcome measures Patients were followed for any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) including: All-cause mortality, Non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), Unplanned revascularization, Cerebrovascular accident and hospitalization for arrhythmia or heart failure. We define hard cardiac events (HCE) as: cardiac death, non-fatal MI or unplanned revascularization. We used two cut-off values to define obstructive lesions with CCTA ≥50% and ≥70% in any coronary segment. SPECT scan defined as abnormal in the presence of >5% reversible myocardial perfusion defect. Results During the follow-up period of 7.2 ± 3.4 years. 45/119 (37.8%) patients experienced 57 MACE: Ten deaths (2 cardiac deaths and 8 of non-cardiac deaths), 29 acute coronary syndrome including non-fatal MI (25 required revascularization), 7 hospitalizations for heart failure, 6 cerebrovascular accidents and 5 new atrial fibrillation. 31 HCEs were reported. Cox regression analysis showed that obstructive coronary stenosis (≥50% and ≥70%) and abnormal SPECT were associated of MACE (p = 0.037, 0.018 and 0.026), respectively. In contrast, HCEs were significantly associated with obstructive coronary stenosis of ≥50% and ≥70% with p = 0.004 and p = 0.007, respectively. In contrast, abnormal SPECT was a nonsignificant predictor of HCEs (p = 0.062). Conclusion Obstructive coronary artery stenosis on CCTA can predict MACE and HCE. However, abnormal SPECT can only predict MACE but not HCE in patients post-PCI with a follow-up period of approximately 7 years.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".