Left Anterior Descending Artery Dissection in a Female Patient With History of Chest Radiation Treatment and Separate Ostia of the Left Coronary Arteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive and flow limiting coronary artery dissections can be a catastrophic clinical scenario, requiring urgent treatment and tailored approach for each case. A 55-year-old female patient, with a history of breast cancer, chest radiation treatments and hypertension presented with episodes of angina and significant area of reversible ischemia on single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT). Coronary angiogram revealed separate ostia of the left coronary arteries and three-vessel disease (SYNTAX (Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) = 15); subsequent full revascularization was achieved successfully with two drug-eluting stents (DES) (mid left anterior descending artery (LAD), left circumflex coronary artery (LCx)) and one drug-coated balloon (posterior descending artery (PDA)). However, after a few hours the patient underwent an urgent second angiography due to ongoing chest pain and electrocardiogram (ECG) changes. Proximal complete occlusion of the anomalous LAD was displayed and a long dissection attributable to an intimal tear following first stent implantation was recorded (well expanded and apposed stent (proximal stent edges were implanted in an unhealthy vessel area infiltrated with fibrotic and calcified plaque) not detectable by conventional angiography). A second 3.5 × 38 mm DES was implanted optimally in the proximal LAD segment and overlapped with the first one, with immediate restoration of the flow and relief of the patient's symptoms. The patient was discharged symptom free and with recommendation for optimal medical treatment for secondary coronary artery disease (CAD) prevention. Conventional coronary angiography in patients with history of chest radiation treatment might not detect accurately the extent and characteristics of the underlying CAD. Appropriate use of intravascular imaging in these cases secures a safe approach for ambiguous lesions and facilitates treatment of iatrogenic coronary dissections following PCI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".