C-36 | Association between coronary revascularization and reduction in ventricular arrhythmias in stable coronary artery disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. The utility of coronary revascularization in reducing VA in stable CAD patients who do not present with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and are not post-cardiac arrest is unclear. This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Stable CAD patients treated with coronary revascularization vs medical therapy alone were compared. Patients who presented with ACS or were post-cardiac arrest at the time of revascularization were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of VA. Five studies (3 observational, 2 RCT) comprising 2663 patients were included (10% female). Two of these studies included CAD patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) only (1431 patients). There was no difference in the incidence of VA in patients who were treated with revascularization vs medical therapy in all included studies (risk ratio [RR] 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.02). In the CTO only studies, the incidence of VA was lower with revascularization vs medical therapy (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14-0.53). In the non-CTO only studies, there was no difference in the incidence of VA with revascularization vs medical therapy alone (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85-1.07). Coronary revascularization may reduce the incidence of VA in stable CAD patients with CTO who do not present with ACS and are not post-cardiac arrest. These data need confirmation in larger studies and may have implications for coronary revascularization appropriate use criteria.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.321 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".