Physiology-guided versus angiography-guided strategies for valve surgery accompanying coronary heart disease: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular diseases, particularly those involving valvular and coronary conditions, lead to significant global mortality. Current strategies combine surgeries like valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting, which can increase perioperative risks. Research indicates that physiology-guided strategies such as fractional flow reserve and quantitative flow ratio improve outcomes by guiding more precise surgical interventions. This study aims to compare physiology-guided and angiography-guided surgical strategies, focusing on evaluating their efficacy and safety in treating patients with combined valvular and coronary pathologies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for studies comparing outcomes of physiology-guided and angiography-guided strategies for patients with valvular diseases combined with coronary heart disease. All English articles published before 31 May 2024 will be considered. The primary outcomes will be major adverse cardiovascular events and graft occlusion rate. The secondary outcomes will be cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularisation, and so on. The Jadad score and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, respectively. The Q-test and I² statistic will be used to assess the heterogeneity. For the primary outcome, we will perform the subgroup analysis if sufficient studies are available. We will also conduct leave-one-out sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of each individual study on the overall results. The protocol follows the Cochrane Handbook for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a secondary analysis of previous studies and therefore does not require ethical approval. Our research will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024542876.
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 | 0.050 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.005 |
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".