Outcomes among patients with coronary artery bypass grafts presenting with acute coronary syndrome: impact of revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients post-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) can re-present with acute coronary syndrome (ACS); however, culprit lesion identification, as well as revascularization, is often challenging. Furthermore, the impact of revascularization in this patient group is relatively unknown. Objectives: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with previous CABG surgery presenting with ACS. Methods: Using data from the Manitoba Center for Health Policy, we identified patients treated with CABG between April 1979 and March 2018, who subsequently presented with the primary diagnosis of ACS. Patients were divided into four groups: (1) managed medically and not investigated by cardiac catheterization and (2) investigated by cardiac catheterization and treated (2a) medically, (2b) with PCI, and (2c) with redo-CABG. Inverse probability treatment-weighted survival analyses were performed. Ethical approval was obtained from the local research board. Results: Nearly 20% of patients treated with CABG presented with ACS at a median of 7.2 years (age at the time of CABG: 66 years (interquartile range: 58–73 years); 75.6% male). Patients treated with PCI ( N = 929) demonstrated improved survival compared to the patients investigated by catheterization but treated medically ( N = 952; hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.77–0.97, p = 0.02). Patients who underwent redo CABG ( N = 171) experienced 13% mortality within the first year, but subsequently, demonstrated a trend toward improved survival. Conclusion: ACS is not uncommon following CABG. Revascularization is associated with prognostic improvement; however, such could be accounted for by inherent group differences, including comorbidities and coronary anatomy These findings should be validated in a prospective randomized study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".