Is coronary angioplasty safe in the elderly?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and the immediate procedural outcomes in the elderly at a tertiary care centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1992 and December 1997, a total retrospective cohort study of 2322 consecutive patients aged 60 years or older underwent PTCA. Patients were categorized into three age groups: group A (60 to 69 years of age), which included 1294 patients; group B (70 to 79 years), which included 895 patients; and group C (80 years of age or older), which included 133 patients. PTCA was performed using the newest catheter technology as it became available. RESULTS: Men comprised 63% of the patients in groups A and B combined, and 44% of group C (P<0.001). Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class IV was present in 45% of group C compared with 30% and 35% in groups A and B, respectively (P<0.001). The proportion of patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension was similar among the three groups. Acute myocardial infarction before PTCA was twice as common at 4.5% (95% CI 3.7% to 5.3%) in group C, compared with 2.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 3.1%) and 2.2% (95% CI 2.0% to 2.3%) in groups A and B, respectively. The procedural success rate was similar at 93%, 92.7% and 91.7% in groups A, B and C, respectively. A total of five (0.2%) deaths and eight (0.34%) myocardial infarctions occurred in groups A and B combined, while none occurred in group C (not significant). More patients in groups A and B underwent emergency coronary artery bypass graft than in group C: group A - 22, 3.4% (95% CI 3.2% to 3.6%); group B - 16, 3.4% (95% CI 3.2% to 3.6%) and group C - one, 0.75% (95% CI 0.6% to 0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective series of patients, it was shown that PTCA may be performed in the very elderly with high procedural success and acceptable risk. Age alone should not be the criterion to limit the use of PTCA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".