Challenges and Burdens in the Coronary Artery Disease Care Pathway for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Contemporary Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical and economic burdens exist within the coronary artery disease (CAD) care pathway despite advances in diagnosis and treatment and the increasing utilization of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, research presenting a comprehensive assessment of the challenges across this pathway is scarce. This contemporary review identifies relevant studies related to inefficiencies in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of CAD, including clinician, patient, and economic burdens. Studies demonstrating the benefits of integration and automation within the catheterization laboratory and across the CAD care pathway were also included. Most studies were published in the last 5-10 years and focused on North America and Europe. The review demonstrated multiple potentially avoidable inefficiencies, with a focus on access, appropriate use, conduct, and follow-up related to PCI. Inefficiencies included misdiagnosis, delays in emergency care, suboptimal testing, longer procedure times, risk of recurrent cardiac events, incomplete treatment, and challenges accessing and adhering to post-acute care. Across the CAD pathway, this review revealed that high clinician burnout, complex technologies, radiation, and contrast media exposure, amongst others, negatively impact workflow and patient care. Potential solutions include greater integration and interoperability between technologies and systems, improved standardization, and increased automation to reduce burdens in CAD and improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".