Correlation of Seattle Angina Questionnaire score and post-procedural outcomes in patients undergoing multi-vessel coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) score has been used to assess angina severity in patients undergoing coronary intervention. However, assessment of clinical outcomes using the SAQ score in those with multi-vessel disease (MVD) requiring multiple interventions has not been determined. Purpose To analyse patient-reported outcomes over time among individuals undergoing multiple staged interventions using serial SAQ scores. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 531 consecutive elective patients who underwent multi-vessel coronary intervention from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, at a single academic centre. We used a short-form version of the SAQ score calculator that is built into our hospital electronic medical record. Trained clinical staff administered the SAQ at the point of care before each procedure. We divided the baseline SAQ scores into three groups [Group 1: <50, Group 2: 50–66, Group 3: ≥67] and analysed the correlation between the scores and patient-reported angina symptoms before the final staged intervention. Post index procedural outcomes, including myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, post-procedural bleeding, and blood transfusion were reported. Results In all, 531 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients' mean age was 65.66±10.30 years, and 78.3% of patients were males. Group 1 had an increased prevalence of diabetes (59.3% vs. 49.4% and 44%), prior coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) (24.7% vs. 17.2% and 11.4%), a lower haemoglobin value (12.88±1.56 vs. 13.06±1.7 and 13.33±1.56) compared with group 2 and group 3. The rate of in-stent restenosis (ISR) was 18.7%, 11.5% and 8.6% in group 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Summary SAQ-7 values between interventions had improved significantly in group 1 (22.30±21.35) and group 2 (10.45±17.77), while group 3 failed to show any meaningful change (−1.09±14.79) (P<0.0001). [Table 1] The post-index-procedural outcomes were not statistically different among the three groups. In group 1, women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.44 to 6.45; p<0.0001) and prior CABG patients (aOR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.27 to 3.24; p=0.0031) had higher odds of SAQ-7 improvement between index and staged intervention. Conclusion The lowest baseline SAQ group had a significant improvement of SAQ score between the index and a staged intervention. The study demonstrated that serial SAQ scores could be used as a surrogate to measure patient-reported outcomes in those with MVD undergoing multiple interventions. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".