MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta-analysis Comparing Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus no Intervention in Patients with Chronic Total Occlusion

2023· article· en· W4380291274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdalazeem Ibrahem, Mohamed Farag, Ying X. Gue, Nikolaos Spinthakis, Ayman Al‐Atta, Mohaned Egred

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart Views · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionAnginaConfidence intervalCardiologyOdds ratioRevascularizationStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialCanadian Cardiovascular Society

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has substantially improved due to increasing operator experience and advancements in equipment, techniques, and management algorithms. However, the overall benefit of CTO PCI remains controversial, particularly since only a few randomized trials have been reported to date. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of CTO PCI. The study outcomes were the occurrence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, or freedom from angina at the longest documented follow-up period. Results: In five trials including 1790 patients, the mean age was 63 ± 10 years, 17% were female, with a median follow-up of 2.9 years. The procedural success rate ranged from 73% to 97% and the right coronary artery was the most involved artery (52%). There was no significant difference between CTO PCI and no intervention regarding all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49–2.47, P = 0.82), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.81–1.77, P = 0.36), repeat revascularization (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40–1.14, P = 0.14), or stroke (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.26–1.36, P = 0.22). In two trials including 686 patients, significantly more patients were free of angina at 1 year, defined as the Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading of angina pectoris Grade 0, in the CTO PCI group compared to the no intervention group (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.35–0.76, P < 0.001). Meta-regression analyses based on various trial-level covariates (gender, diabetes, previous myocardial infarction, PCI or coronary artery bypass graft, SYNTAX or J-CTO scores, and CTO-related artery percentages) did not suggest any statistically significant relationships. Conclusions: CTO PCI appears to have a similar efficacy profile compared to no intervention at long-term follow-up, but with a significant improvement of angina favoring PCI-treated patients. Further adequately powered and long-term trials are required to identify the best management strategy for patients with coronary CTO.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeart ViewsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207