A case report: successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unprotected left main and three-vessel coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Left Main Coronary Artery (LMCA) Disease is the highest-risk lesion of coronary artery disease and is related to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared to other types of obstructive Coronary Arterial Disease (CAD). Previously, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was the preferred method for revascularization in significant LMCA lesions; however, results from several trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) to CABG showed PCI was non-inferior to CABG in highly selected LMCA patients. This report was to describe the contemporary evidence for PCI to CABG in LMCA Disease. Case Presentation: A diabetic and hypertensive 59-year-old man with stable angina pectoris and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Score III was referred to Saiful Anwar Hospital for elective PCI consideration. The patient was diagnosed with left main and three-vessel coronary artery disease from CCTA in 2009 and angiography in 2023, then suggested to CABG for revascularization. However, the patient refused CABG surgery and decided to perform PCI with high-risk criteria after an adequate consultation. Considering the high-risk category and reduced ejection fraction, an elective PCI was performed with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support. Then it implanted 2 DES at distal-LM until distal-LCx. In the following procedure, the patient also implanted 1 DES at mid-distal RCA and was discharged with significant improvement in his quality of life. Conclusion: In selected left main and three-vessel coronary artery disease, PCI is successfully improves the patient's quality of life. Keyword: complex PCI, left main coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, quality of life
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".