The impact of successful chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention on clinical outcomes: a tertiary single-center analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The benefit of chronic total occlusion (CTO)-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial because of a lack of high-quality evidence. We aim to evaluate the impact of CTO-PCI on symptoms, quality of life and mortality. Methods We conducted a retrospective single center study of patients with CTO-PCI in a tertiary center in Austria. The study outcomes were Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina score, quality of life measured by Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), and death at median follow up for patients with successful vs. failed CTO-PCI. Results A total of 300 patients underwent CTO-PCI for coronary artery disease, of which 252 (84%) were technically successful with median follow up of 3.4 years. There were no significant differences in in-hospital or all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular event, or stent-related complications between the groups of failed and successful CTO-PCI. Among patients with successful CTO-PCI there was a significant improvement in CCS score, which was not found for the group with failed CTO-PCI. Successful reopening was associated with significant benefits of the SAQ domains of angina with stressful activity [3.7 ± 0.9 vs. 3.1 ± 0.5, p = 0.004, use of nitrates (4.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.0 ± 1.0) p = 0.005] and satisfaction from angina relief (4.4 ± 1.1 vs. 3.6 ± 1.4 p < 0.001). Conclusion While there was no significant difference in mortality, successful CTO-PCI was associated with greater reduction in angina and the use of nitrates compared to unsuccessful CTO-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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".