MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411212509 · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.039663

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With 3‐Vessel Coronary Artery Disease and Diabetes

2025· article· en· W4411212509 on OpenAlexaff
Ryaan EL‐Andari, Nicholas M. Fialka, Jimmy J.H. Kang, Yongzhe Hong, Padma Kaul, Finlay A. McAlister, William Kent, Jeevan Nagendran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseBypass graftingArteryDiabetes mellitusMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been associated with reduced mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with 3‐vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes. The majority of previous studies have been limited to follow‐up of <10 years. Herein, we compared CABG and PCI in patients with 3‐vessel coronary artery disease and diabetes with a maximum long‐term follow‐up of 14 years. Methods Patients with diabetes and 3‐vessel coronary artery disease but without ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction who underwent coronary angiography followed by CABG or PCI from 2009 to 2018 were included in this study. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, and clinical comorbidities. Results A total of 1210 patients underwent PCI (median follow‐up, 9.1 years) while 477 underwent CABG (median follow‐up, 8.1 years). Patients who underwent CABG were less likely to experience mortality (49.6% versus 57.6%, P =0.003, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61–0.91]), myocardial infarction (15.6% versus 28.1%, P <0.001, aHR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.33–0.61]), or require repeat revascularization (7.7% versus 26.9%, P <0.001, aHR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.14–0.30]) at longest follow‐up. Risk of rehospitalization (82.6% versus 83.4%, P =0.656) and stroke (11.6% versus 12.2%, P =0.794) did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusions In this study, we describe one of the longest follow‐up periods for patients with diabetes and 3‐vessel coronary artery disease who underwent CABG or PCI and confirmed that the shorter‐term benefits seen in randomized trials do translate into longer‐term reductions in risk of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization.

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)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207