Abstract 3713: Five Year Follow Up Of The Pci Vs. Exercise Training In Stable Coronary Artery Disease-Pilot Trial (Pet-pilot)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary revascularisation by percutaneous techniques is widely used in the treatment of patients (pts) with coronary artery disease (CAD). Among non-pharmacological therapeutic options for pts with stable CAD, regular physical exercise training (ET) is known to improve functional work capacity, myocardial perfusion and the 1 year event free survival rate. Aim of this study was to compare stent angioplasty (SA) with a conservative strategy including daily ET with regard to event-free survival after a 5 year follow up and clinical status. Method: 101 pts with stable CAD were randomly assigned either to SA or to the ET-group. Pts in both groups received optimised medical standard therapy. Initially and at follow up visits, clinical status was assessed using the Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification (CCS). The primary endpoint was the composite of death from any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, need for any revascularization procedure due to unstable angina pectoris (UA) and hospitalisation due to worsening of angina pectoris. Results: The event free survival rate for the combined primary endpoint was 63 % (32 patients out of 51) in the exercise training group and 40% (20 patients out of 50) in the stent group (p=0.037) . Within the five years of follow up, 36 cardiovascular events occurred in 19 patients of the training group as compared to 55 cardiovascular events in 30 patients of the stent group. Conclusion: At long-term follow up of 5 years, daily exercise training additionally to a optimal medical treatment in stable CAD patients leads to a better event free survival rate compared with stent angioplasty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".