MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417103122 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.250312

Time-varying comparative effectiveness of surgical or percutaneous revascularization on patient-centred outcomes

2025· article· en· W4417103122 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Vikram Fielding‐Singh, Christian O’Donnell, Jack H. Boyd, Meltem Tuna, Mamas Mamas, Marc Ruel, Louise Y. Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsConventional PCIRevascularizationPercutaneousPaceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the comparative risks and timing of patient-defined adverse cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events (PACE) after coronary artery revascularization. We investigated comparative risks of PACEs after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent isolated index myocardial revascularization procedures between Oct. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2018, in Ontario, Canada. The primary exposure was revascularization by CABG or PCI. The primary outcome was PACE, a composite of postoperative severe stroke, ventilator dependence, new-onset or worsening heart failure, long-term care admission, and new-onset dialysis. We modelled the association of revascularization strategy and PACE using an overlap-weighted, cause-specific hazard model, with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: Of 140 519 patients included in the analysis, 54 018 (38.4%) underwent CABG and 86 501 (61.6%) underwent PCI. The groups were well balanced after overlap weighting. During a median follow-up duration of 4.8 (interquartile range 2.5 to 7.6) years, a total of 22 926 (16.3%) patients experienced PACE, including 9725 (18.0%) in the CABG group and 13 201 (15.3%) in the PCI group. We found no significant between-group difference in the cumulative incidence of PACE over the entire study period (average hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.01). However, the HR for PACE varied over time. The HR comparing CABG to PCI was elevated in the first year, reached a minimum of around 0.7 at years 3 and 4, and then rose, favouring PCI again after year 8. INTERPRETATION: The comparative risk of PACE after CABG versus PCI varied significantly over time. These findings provide granular data to support physicians and patients engaged in shared decision-making about revascularization strategies.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→