The role of physiology in the contemporary management of coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary physiology assessment, including epicardial and microvascular investigations, is a fundamental tool in the contemporary management of patients with coronary artery disease. Coronary revascularisation guided by functional evaluation has demonstrated superiority over angiography-only-guided treatment. In patients with chronic coronary syndrome, revascularisation did not demonstrate prognostic advantage in terms of mortality over optimal medical therapy (OMT). However, revascularisation of coronary stenosis, which induces myocardial ischaemia, has demonstrated better outcome than OMT alone. Pressure wire (PW) or angiography-based longitudinal coronary physiology provides a point-by-point analysis of the vessel to detect the atherosclerotic pattern of coronary disease. A careful evaluation of this disease pattern allows clinicians to choose the appropriate management strategy.Patients with diffuse disease showed a twofold risk of residual angina after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than those with focal disease. Therefore, OMT alone or coronary artery bypass graft might be considered over PCI. In addition, the post-PCI physiological assessment aims to optimise the result revealing residual myocardial ischaemia. Improvement in post-PCI PW or angiography-based functional indices has been associated with better quality of life and reduced risk of cardiac events and residual angina. Therefore, the information obtained from coronary physiology allows for an optimised treatment strategy, which ultimately leads to improve patient's prognosis and quality of life. This review provides an overview of the latest available evidence in the literature regarding the use of functional assessment of epicardial coronary stenosis in different settings in the contemporary patient-tailored management of coronary disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".