Completeness of revascularization by FFRCT in stable angina: Association to adverse cardiovascular outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe prognostic impact of complete coronary revascularization relative to non-invasive testing methods is unknown.ObjectivesTo assess the association between completeness of revascularization defined by CTA-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable angina.MethodsMulticenter 3-year follow-up study of patients with new onset stable angina and ≥ 30% stenosis by CTA. The lesion-specific FFRCT value (two cm-distal-to-stenosis) was registered in all vessels with stenosis and considered abnormal when ≤ 0.80. Patients with FFRCT ≤ 0.80 were categorized as: Completely revascularized (CR-FFRCT), all vessels with FFRCT ≤ 0.80 revascularized; incompletely revascularized (IR-FFRCT), ≥ 1 vessels with FFRCT ≤ 0.80 non-revascularized. Early revascularization (< 90 days from index CTA) categorized vessels as revascularized. The primary endpoint comprised cardiovascular death and non-fatal myocardial infarction; the secondary endpoint vessel-specific late revascularization and non-fatal myocardial infarction.ResultsAmongst 900 patients and 1759 vessels, FFRCT was ≤ 0.80 in 377 (42%) patients, 536 (30%) vessels; revascularization was performed in 244 (27%) patients, 340 (19%) vessels. Risk of the primary endpoint was higher for IR-FFRCT (15/210 [7.1%]) compared to CR-FFRCT (4/167 [2.4%]), RR: 2.98; 95% CI: 1.01–8.8, p = 0.036, and to normal FFRCT (3/523 [0.6%]), RR: 12.45; 95% CI: 3.6–42.6, p < 0.001. Incidence of the secondary endpoint was higher in non-revascularized vessels with FFRCT ≤ 0.80 (29/250 [12%]) compared to revascularized vessels with FFRCT ≤ 0.80 (5/286 [1.7%]), p = 0.001, and to vessels with FFRCT > 0.80 (10/1223 [0.8%]), p < 0.001.ConclusionIncomplete revascularization of patients with lesion-specific FFRCT ≤ 0.80 is associated to unfavorable cardiovascular outcomes compared to those with complete revascularization or FFRCT > 0.80.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".