MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk factors associated with restenosis in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention

2024· article· en· W4401359538 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Akshay Bafna, Kuldeep Totawar, Varun Deokate, Rohit Shriwastav

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart India · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRestenosisInternal medicineStenosisCardiologyDiabetes mellitusMyocardial infarctionDyslipidemiaOdds ratioCoronary artery diseaseThrombolysisPercutaneous coronary interventionConfidence intervalAngioplastyStentDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the risk factors associated with residual stenosis in patients with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at a single health-care center among coronary artery disease patients who have undergone PTCA. Primary information including demographics and clinical characteristics, groups of pre- and postdilation balloons, and characteristics of culprits’ vessel flow were retrieved from medical records of each patient. Data were analyzed using descriptive and appropriate comparative statistics. Results: A total of 1000 patients were included in this study. The majority of patients were men (67.0%). Hypertension (HTN) and diabetes were the most common comorbid condition. Yukon Choice phosphorylcholine (PC)-elite (86.2%) was the most common stent used in patients with PTCA followed by Endeavor Sprint (12.7%). All of the patients (100%) underwent PTCA for single culprit vessel disease (SVD) while 30.2% of the patients underwent PTCA for two-vessel disease (2VD). The incidence of residual stenosis was 0.5% for SVD PTCA and 0.3% for 2VD PTCA. The 2VD group achieved thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow Grade II postrevascularization in 98.6% of patients. Significant associations were observed between residual stenosis and various factors. HTN (odds ratio [OR]: 38.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.260-461.688; P = 0.004), diabetes mellitus (OR: 4.548, 95% CI: 0.036-63.948; P < 0.001), the use of a 0.014” × 190 cm guide (OR: 185.0, 95% CI: 25.922-1320.294; P < 0.001), and the presence of two-vessel disease (OR: 6.698, 95% CI: 1.221-36.749; P = 0.029) were found to be significantly associated with residual stenosis. Conclusion: Residual stenosis was observed in both SVD and 2VD PTCA however, presence of HTN and DM, and 2VD were identified as pronounced risk factors for residual stenosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueHeart IndiaSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207