2022 Joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 2021, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) jointly agreed to establish a Task Force (TF) to review recommendations of the 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization as they apply to patients with left main (LM) disease with low-to-intermediate SYNTAX score (0-32). This followed the withdrawal of support by the EACTS in 2019 for the recommendations about the management of LM disease of the previous guideline. The TF was asked to review all new relevant data since the 2018 guidelines including updated aggregated data from the four randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with LM disease. This document represents a summary of the work of the TF; suggested updated recommendations for the choice of revascularization modality in patients undergoing myocardial revascularization for LM disease are included. In stable patients with an indication for revascularization for LM disease, with coronary anatomy suitable for both procedures and a low predicted surgical mortality, the TF concludes that both treatment options are clinically reasonable based on patient preference, available expertise, and local operator volumes. The suggested recommendations for revascularization with CABG are Class I, Level of Evidence A. The recommendations for PCI are Class IIa, Level of Evidence A. The TF recognized several important gaps in knowledge related to revascularization in patients with LM disease and recognizes that aggregated data from the four randomized trials were still only large enough to exclude large differences in mortality.
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 | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".