MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391746318 · doi:10.1101/2024.02.09.24302611

Routine Intracoronary Imaging-guided Left Main Coronary Intervention

2024· preprint· en· W4391746318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yoshinobu Murasato, Hitoshi Nakashima, Hiroshi Sugino, Masaya Arikawa, Fumiaki Mori, Yasunori Ueda, Keisuke Matsumura, Mitsuru Abe, Tomomi Koizumi, Mitsuhiro Shimomura, Kazuteru Fujimoto, Takahiro Saeki, Shogo Imagawa, Takashi Takenaka, Yukiko Morita, Katsuro Kashima, Yujiro Ono, Atsuki Fukae, Hisako Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyInternal medicineIntervention (counseling)RadiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with routine intracoronary imaging guidance is recommended; however, its real-world effectiveness remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes in a Japanese National Hospital Organization cohort in which routine imaging guidance was adopted. Methods Of the 806 consecutive patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation for de novo unprotected LM lesions across 19 hospitals, 743 were analyzed after excluding 63 owing to criteria mismatch or incomplete follow-up. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), comprising all-cause death, cerebrovascular disorder, clinical-driven revascularization, and myocardial infarction. Results The cohort exhibited increased prevalences of diabetes mellitus, prior myocardial infarction, and prior revascularization. Acute coronary syndrome was present in 31.2% of the patients, with 39.3% classified as Canadian Cardiovascular Society functional angina (CCS) class ≥III. LM bifurcation lesions were observed in 78.0% of the patients, with two-stent implantation in 8.8% of the patients. MACCE occurred in 17.5% of the patients, with target lesion revascularization and cardiac death rates of 2.0% and 3.4%, respectively. Independent risk factors for MACCE included CCS class ≥III (hazard ratio [HR], 2.07), mechanical cardiac support device use (HR, 2.17), two-stent implantation (HR, 2.49), 10% increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (HR, 0.72), and radial access (HR, 0.62). Conclusion Routine imaging-guided LM-PCI is associated with a lower incidence of target lesion revascularization and cardiac death. However, severe left ventricular dysfunction and multiple-vessel involvement are associated with higher mortality and revascularization risks, requiring comprehensive management beyond imaging-guided PCI. Clinical Perspective What is new? This study clarifies the clinical outcomes of left main coronary intervention guided by routine intracoronary imaging, revealing a low frequency of target lesion revascularization and cardiac death. Despite the favorable local efficacy of imaging guidance, patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and multiple-vessel involvement still face elevated risks of mortality and revascularization. What are the clinical implications? Intracoronary imaging guidance in the left main coronary artery is crucial for optimizing intervention treatments and enhancing local efficacy at the treated sites. Despite these improvements, the high mortality rate associated with serious myocardial damage from left main coronary artery obstruction underscores the importance of careful consideration in such cases. Coronary artery disease involving the left main and multiple vessels carries an elevated risk of additional revascularizations beyond the target lesion, emphasizing the need for comprehensive management strategies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→