Percutaneous or surgical revascularization in patients with severe left main coronary artery disease in Latin America: A GRADE clinical practice guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe left main coronary artery disease (LMD) poses a major treatment challenge in Latin America, where both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are used. METHODS: This guideline was developed de novo using the GRADE approach. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed evidence from a systematic review of randomized trials comparing PCI and CABG, incorporating a comprehensive literature search of patient values and preferences and outcome utilities. Thresholds were assigned for each clinical outcome, from small to large effect. RESULTS: Five randomized trials enrolling 4612 patients were included. At 30 days, PCI resulted in a large reduction in major bleeding and a small reduction in strokes. At 5 years, PCI was associated with a small to moderate increase of spontaneous myocardial infarction and a moderate to large increase in repeat revascularization. No important differences in short- or long-term mortality were observed between PCI and CABG. The overall certainty of evidence was rated low. There was a notable variability in patient values and a close call on the balance of effects. CONCLUSIONS: For patients in Latin America with severe left main coronary artery disease, the guideline panel suggests either PCI or CABG. This is a conditional recommendation, based on low certainty in the evidence (⨁⨁◯◯). It applies when both procedures are clinically and anatomically appropriate and can be performed at centers meeting acceptable standards. The decision should be made through a shared decision-making process involving the patient and the multidisciplinary care team.
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".