MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408178947 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf080

Medical therapy and outcomes in REVIVED-BCIS2 and STICHES: an individual patient data analysis

2025· article· en· W4408178947 on OpenAlexaff
M. J. Ryan, Mark C. Petrie, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Matthew Dodd, Guangyu Tong, Guillaume Marquis‐Gravel, Kieran F. Docherty, Tim Clayton, Alexandra J. Lansky, Mamas A. Mamas, Jean L. Rouleau, Eric J. Velazquez, Divaka Perera

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersBritish Heart Foundation Centre of Regenerative MedicineNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNovo NordiskAlexion PharmaceuticalsBritish Heart FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAbiomedAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIHazard ratioEjection fractionRandomized controlled trialPercutaneous coronary interventionInternal medicineHeart failureRevascularizationCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseConfidence intervalSurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the Surgical Treatment for Ischaemic Heart Failure Trial Extension Study (STICHES), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improved outcomes of patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction receiving medical therapy, whereas in the Revascularization for Ischaemia Ventricular Dysfunction trial (REVIVED-BCIS2), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not. The aim of this study was to explore differences in outcomes of participants treated with medical therapy alone in STICHES vs. REVIVED-BCIS2 and to assess the incremental benefit of CABG or PCI. METHODS: Pooled analysis of adjusted individual participant data from two multicentre randomized trials. All patients had left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and coronary artery disease and received medical therapy. Participants were randomized 1:1 to CABG (STICHES) or PCI (REVIVED-BCIS2). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and hospitalization for heart failure over all available follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1912 participants (88% male, 76% white ethnicity) were included with 98.3% completeness of follow-up for the primary outcome. The median follow-up was 118 months in STICHES and 41 months in REVIVED-BCIS2. Those receiving medical therapy alone in REVIVED-BCIS2 had fewer primary outcome events than those receiving medical therapy alone in STICHES (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.74, P < .001). Patients receiving PCI in REVIVED-BCIS2 were less likely to experience a primary outcome event than those receiving CABG in STICHES. Adjusted outcomes of patients treated with CABG in STICHES were worse than those receiving medical therapy alone in REVIVED-BCIS2. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving medical therapy in REVIVED-BCIS2 had better outcomes than those in STICHES, with or without CABG surgery. Further trials comparing CABG, PCI, and medical therapy in this population are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.012
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations19
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207