Hospital and Physician Variability in Revascularization Decisions and Outcomes for Patients With 3‐Vessel and Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: A Population‐Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital- and physician-level variation for selection of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with coronary artery disease has been associated with outcome differences. However, most studies excluded patients treated medically. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2010 to 2019, adults with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease at 3 hospitals (A, B, C) in Alberta, Canada, were categorized by treatment with medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, or CABG. Multilevel regression models determined the proportion of variation in treatment attributable to patient, physician, and hospital factors, and survival models assessed outcomes including death and major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years. Of 22 580 patients (mean age, 67 years; 80% men): 6677 (29%) received medical management, 9171 (41%) percutaneous coronary intervention, and 6732 (30%) CABG. Hospital factors accounted for 10.8% of treatment variation. In adjusted models (site A as reference), patients at sites B and C had 49% (95% CI, 44%-53%) and 43% (95% CI, 37%-49%) lower rates of medical therapy, respectively, and 31% (95% CI, 24%-38%) and 32% (95% CI, 24%-40%) lower rates of CABG. During 5.0 years median follow-up, 3287 (14.6%) patients died, with no intersite mortality differences. There were no between-site differences in acute coronary syndromes or stroke; patients at sites B and C had 24% lower risk (95% CI, 13%-34% and 11%-35%, respectively) of heart failure hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-level variation in selection of percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG, or medical therapy for patients with complex coronary artery disease was not associated with differences in 5-year mortality rates. Research and quality improvement initiatives comparing revascularization practices should include medically managed patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".