The effect of coronary revascularization timing on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background There is little evidence on whether the timing of revascularization affects cardiovascular disease progression in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. We aimed to determine if disease progression differed between patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery after the time recommended by physicians compared to timely percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods We identified 25,469 British Columbia, Canada residents ages 60 years or older who underwent their first non-emergency revascularization for angiographically proven, stable left main or multi-vessel ischemic heart disease. We estimated the cumulative incidence of a composite cardiovascular outcome (CVO) and death as a competing risk for patients undergoing delayed CABG versus timely PCI. Results After adjustment, patients who underwent delayed CABG had a statistically significantly lower cumulative CVO incidence at three years compared with those who received timely PCI (9.6% delayed CABG, 23.2% timely PCI; subdistribution hazard ratio for CVO at three years 0.50, 95% CI 0.26–0.99). Conclusion Our results suggest that for patients who wish to wait for CABG, doing so may lead to slower disease progression compared with receiving 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".