Revascularization strategy for left main coronary artery disease comparing percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting(CABG) has long been the preferred treatment for left main coronary artery disease(LMCAD), although percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) has been increasingly utilized. Despite numerous investigations seeking to identify the optimal revascularization strategy for LMCAD, limitations in sample size or follow-up duration have hindered definitive conclusions. Herein, we compare the long-term outcomes up to 14 years after CABG or PCI for patients with LMCAD. METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from a provincial database. The inclusion criteria is patients ≥18 years old, with LMCAD, and revascularization with CABG or PCI. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes are any rehospitalization, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization. Outcomes are adjusted for age, sex, and clinical comorbidities. The average age of the patients was 67 ± 9 years for the CABG patients and 71 ± 11 years for the PCI patients. 84.7% of the CABG patients and 71.5% of the PCI patients were male. RESULTS: 5580 patients are identified with LMCAD between 2009 and 2018. 1706 patients (1180 CABG; 526 PCI) are included in the final analysis and followed until March 31, 2023. Rates of mortality at longest follow-up of 14 years are 40.0% for CABG and 58.4% for PCI (adjusted hazard ratio(aHR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval(CI) 0.48-0.70, p < 0.001). Rates of MI (10.7% vs 22.3%, aHR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.55, p < 0.001) and repeat revascularization (5.4%vs16.3%, aHR 0.25, 95% CI 0.18-0.36, p < 0.001) favor CABG over PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LMCAD undergoing CABG experience significant benefit over PCI in terms of long-term mortality, MI, and required repeat revascularization. These finding suggest CABG should remain the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with LMCAD and acceptable surgical risk. Future studies should explore evolving PCI techniques and their impact on long-term outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".