MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI or Coronary Bypass Surgery for 3-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: 3-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 3 Trial

2023· article· en· W4386019824 on OpenAlexaff
Frederik M. Zimmermann, Victoria Y. Ding, Nico H.J. Pijls, Zsolt Piróth, Albert H.M. van Straten, L Székely, Giedrius Davidavičius, Gintaras Kalinauskas, Samer Mansour, Rajesh Kharbanda, Nikolaos Östlund-Papadogeorgos, Adel Aminian, Keith G. Oldroyd, Nawwar Al‐Attar, Nikola Jagić, Jan‐Henk E. Dambrink, Petr Kala, Oskar Angerås, Philip MacCarthy, Olaf Wendler, Filip Casselman, Nils Witt, Kreton Mavromatis, Steven E.S. Miner, Jaydeep Sarma, Thomas Engstrøm, Evald Høj Christiansen, Pim A.L. Tonino, Michael J. Reardon, Hisao Otsuki, Yuhei Kobayashi, Mark A. Hlatky, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Manisha Desai, Y. Joseph Woo, Alan C. Yeung, Bernard De Bruyne, William F. Fearon

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health CenterCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsMedicineFractional flow reserveConventional PCICardiologyCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineCoronary artery bypass surgeryArteryMyocardial infarctionCoronary angiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary disease not involving the left main have shown significantly lower rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke after CABG. These studies did not routinely use current-generation drug-eluting stents or fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide PCI. METHODS: FAME 3 (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, international, randomized trial involving patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (not involving the left main coronary artery) in 48 centers worldwide. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FFR-guided PCI using zotarolimus drug-eluting stents or CABG. The prespecified key secondary end point of the trial reported here is the 3-year incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke. RESULTS: A total of 1500 patients were randomized to FFR-guided PCI or CABG. Follow-up was achieved in >96% of patients in both groups. There was no difference in the incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke after FFR-guided PCI compared with CABG (12.0% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.3 [95% CI, 0.98–1.83]; P =0.07). The rates of death (4.1% versus 3.9%; HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6–1.7]; P =0.88) and stroke (1.6% versus 2.0%; HR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4–1.7]; P =0.56) were not different. MI occurred more frequently after PCI (7.0% versus 4.2%; HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1–2.7]; P =0.02). CONCLUSIONS: At 3-year follow-up, there was no difference in the incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke after FFR-guided PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents compared with CABG. There was a higher incidence of MI after PCI compared with CABG, with no difference in death or stroke. These results provide contemporary data to allow improved shared decision-making between physicians and patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02100722.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations58
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207