Abstract 14697: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in nonagenarians: Midterm Outcomes and Quality of Life assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PCI in Nonagenarians: Mid-term outcomes and Quality of Life assessment Background: As the population ages, the number of nonagenarians is projected to increase at an unprecedented rate. A limited number of studies have demonstrated that these patients can be treated successfully with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). As these individuals continue to live longer, a greater number will require myocardial revascularization. However, mid-term clinical and functional benefits of PCI in this cohort of patients have not been clearly defined. Methods: Between January 2005 and June 2009, 173 patients 90 years and older underwent diagnostic cardiac catheterization of which 93 patients had PCI. There were 48 males (52%) and 45 females (48%) with a mean age of 92.06 years (range: 90-101). Of these patients 24 (26%) presented with a STEMI, 32 (34%) patients with a Non-STEMI, 30 (32%)patients with unstable angina, 2 (2%) patients with stable angina, and 5 (5%) patients were studied for pre-operative risk assessment. Results: A total of 127 lesions were successfully treated utilizing 102 drug eluting stents and 37 bare metal stents with a mean of 1.5 stents per patient. Post-procedure complications included renal insufficiency in 5 patients (5.6%), congestive heart failure in 6 patients (6.7%) and cardiogenic shock in 2 patients (2.2%). Seventy-seven patients (85.6%) experienced no post-procedure complications. The in-hospital mortality was 7.8% and the actuarial survival was 61.5% ± 5.2% at 24 months and 31.6% ± 6.1% at 48 months. The Short Form 36 Health Survey was administered at follow-up and results demonstrated a quality of life similar to that of the general population corrected for age and gender. Conclusion: This study clearly demonstrates that PCI in nonagenarians can be accomplished with acceptable hospital mortality, morbidity and excellent mid-term results. Moreover, functional improvement in nonagenarians support an enhanced a quality of life comparable to that of the general population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".