MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Physiological phenotype of coronary artery disease on short-term angina status in patients with CCS after PCI: perspective from PIONEER IV trial

2023· article· en· W4388893140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xuegai He, Bei Wang, Tzung‐Yi Tsai, P Chennigahoshalli Revaiah, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska, Faisal Sharif, Liesbeth Rosseel, Johan H. C. Reiber, Yoshinobu Onuma, Patrick W. Serruys

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCICoronary artery diseaseCardiologyInternal medicineAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyFractional flow reserveRadiologyCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The hemodynamic impact of PCI on major epicardial conductance vessels is the results of a complex interplay between diffuseness and focality of coronary artery atherosclerosis. The pre-procedural identification of these two phenotypes (diffuseness vs. focality) may have important implication on the angina relief after PCI. Purpose The aim of this study was to determine the differential improvement in patient-reported outcomes after PCI in focal and diffuse CAD as defined by the pullback pressure gradient index (PPGi) derived from angiography. Methods The PIONEER IV trial is a prospective, all-comers, multi-center trial, randomizing patients to PCI guided by angiography-derived physiology or usual care, with both arms using the Healing-Targeted Supreme sirolimus-eluting stent. Pre-procedural PPGi derived from angiography was documented. The 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7) was administered at baseline and 30 days after PCI. The median PPG value was used to define focal and diffuse CAD. Residual angina was defined as a SAQ-AF score ≤ 90. Results A total of 203 patients were analyzed, in which 105 patients with focal CAD and 98 diffuse. Focal disease had larger pre-procedure QFR and post-procedure QFR value than patients with diffuse disease (0.71 ± 0.13 vs 0.59 ± 0.19, P < 0.001; 0.96 ± 0.04 vs 0.91 ± 0.08, P < 0.001). The median of PPGi was 0.73 (Figure 1A). In the restricted cubic spline model, the risk of residual angina rises substantially when the pre-procedural PPGi was below 0.74 (Figure 1B). Patients with focal disease who underwent PCI for focal CAD had significantly higher angina frequency score and quality of life score at follow-up than those with diffuse CAD (94.10 ± 11.58 vs 89.80 ± 16.31, P = 0.031; 75.77 ± 26.01 vs 67.17 ± 25.86, P=0.024; Figure 2). After PCI, residual angina was present in 35.0% but was significantly less in those with treated focal CAD (26.7 % vs 43.9 %; P = 0.015; Figure 1C-D). Conclusion Residual angina after PCI was higher in patients with diffuse CAD, whereas patients with focal CAD reported greater improvement in angina and quality of life. Whether pre-procedural physiological phenotyping should alter the therapeutic decision making to perform PCI, and could influence the procedure planning warrants further study.Figure 1Figure 2

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→