Evaluation of the guideline-adherence of coronary angiography in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome – Results from the German prospective multicentre ENLIGHT-KHK project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With 900'000 coronary angiographies (CA) per year, Germany has the highest annual per capita volume in Europe. Until now there are no prospective clinical data on the degree of guideline-adherence in the use of CA in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) in Germany. Methods: Between January 2019 and August 2021, 458 patients with suspected CCS were recruited in nine German centres. Guideline-adherence was evaluated according to the current European Society of Cardiology and German guidelines. Pre-test probability (PTP) for CAD was determined using age, gender, and a standardized patient questionnaire to identify symptoms. Data on the diagnostic work-up were obtained from health records. Results: Patients were in mean 66.6 years old, male in 57.3 %, had known CAD in 48.4 % and presented with typical, atypical, non-anginal chest pain or dyspnoea in 35.7 %, 41.3 %, 23.0 % and 25.4 %, respectively. PTP according to the European guidelines was in mean 24.2 % (11.9 %-36.5 % 95 % CI). 20.9 % of the patients received guideline-recommended preceding non-invasive image guided testing. The use of CA was adherent to the European and German guideline recommendations in 20.4 % and 25.4 %, respectively. In multivariate-analysis, arterial hypertension and prior revascularization were predictors of guideline non-adherence. Conclusion: These are the first prospective clinical data which demonstrated an overall low degree of guideline-adherence in the use of CA in patients with suspected CCS in the German health care setting. To improve adherence rates, the availability of and access to non-invasive image guided testing needs to be strengthened. (German Clinical Trials Registry DRKS00015638 - Registration Date: 19.02.2019).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".