Real-world effectiveness of early revascularization in stable coronary artery disease with moderate or severe ischemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Comparative effectiveness studies may provide insights into generalizability of the ISCHEMIA trial to real-world patients. We evaluated the long-term effectiveness of revascularization within 90 days after detecting moderate or severe ischemia on myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in stable coronary artery disease. Methods All consecutive patients with moderate or severe ischemia (summed difference score ≥7) on single photon emission computed tomography MPI at a tertiary academic medical center were included (January 2003 to March 2020). Early revascularization (defined as percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting within 90 days) after MPI, was compared to those patients treated without early revascularization, excluding those with left main disease, severe chronic kidney disease, severe left ventricular dysfunction, recent acute coronary syndrome or heart failure hospitalization. Primary outcomes were cardiovascular death or the composite of cardiovascular hospitalization or cardiovascular death, and were tracked throughout the provincial healthcare system. Results 1530 patients (mean age: 65 years; 70 % male) were followed for a median of 9.9 years. After inverse-probability treatment weighting, early revascularization was associated with lower risks of cardiovascular death (3.76 % vs 8.93 %; HR 0.54, 95 % CI: 0.31–0.91, p = 0.022) and a reduction in the composite endpoint (33.73 % vs 43.94 %; HR 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.49–0.92, p = 0.013) compared to those treated without early revascularization. Conclusions Patients with stable coronary artery disease treated with early revascularization after MPI showing moderate or severe ischemia experienced lower risks of cardiovascular death and composite of cardiovascular hospitalization or cardiovascular death compared to those treated without early 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 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 | 0.035 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".