MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409865374 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.241713

Clinical significance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol percentage reduction and attained levels after percutaneous coronary intervention

2025· article· en· W4409865374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Danbee Kang, Ki Hong Choi, Seongwoo Yang, Hyun‐Soo Kim, Taek Kyu Park, Joo Myung Lee, Juhee Cho, Jeong Hoon Yang, Young Bin Song, Seung‐Hyuk Choi, Hyeon‐Cheol Gwon, Joo-Yong Hahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health Insurance Service
KeywordsPercutaneous coronary interventionMedicineClinical significanceReduction (mathematics)CholesterolInternal medicineLow-density lipoproteinCardiologyMyocardial infarctionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Differences exist between European and American guideline recommendations regarding targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with European guidance advocating for more aggressive reduction to less than 1.4 mmol/L compared with the American guideline, which recommends an LDL-C level of 1.8 mmol/L or greater as the threshold for treatment intensification. We aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes according to percentage reduction of LDL-C levels and to compare the outcomes according to the attained LDL-C levels after PCI. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included adults in South Korea who underwent PCI and health screening within 3 years before and after PCI. Participants were divided into groups with a reduction of LDL-C levels of less than 50% and of 50% or greater. The group with LDL-C reduction of 50% or greater was stratified into categories of LDL-C level after PCI: less than 1.4 mmol/L, 1.4 to less than 1.8 mmol/L, and 1.8 mmol/L or greater. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and ischemic stroke. RESULTS: = 54 551). During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, the group with a reduction of 50% or greater had a multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for MACCE of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.80). Among patients who achieved a reduction of LDL-C levels of 50% or greater, the multivariable-adjusted HR for MACCE was 1.07 (95% CI 1.02-1.13) for the group with LDL-C levels of 1.4 to less than 1.8 mmol/L after PCI and 1.12 (95% CI 1.04-1.21) for the group with levels of greater than 1.8 mmol/L. The risk of spontaneous MI was also higher in the group with LDL-C levels of 1.8 mmol/L or greater than in the group with levels of less than 1.4 mmol/L (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.14-1.62). INTERPRETATION: Among patients who underwent PCI, those who achieved a reduction in LDL-C levels of 50% or greater had a reduced risk of MACCE, regardless of baseline LDL-C levels. Among patients with a reduction in LDL-C levels of 50% or greater, compared with patients with an LDL-C level less than 1.4 mmol/L after PCI, those with an LDL-C level of greater than 1.8 mmol/L and a level of 1.4 to less than 1.8 mmol/L had an increased risk of MACCE. These findings suggest that while achieving an LDL-C reduction of 50% or greater remains a critical therapeutic goal, targeting LDL-C levels of less than 1.4 mmol/L after PCI may provide additional clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06338956.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→