NCT can be more affected by CCT than GAT. CCR could influence the measurements of GAT, but not those by NCT. CCT and CCR can therefore influence the discordance of IOP readings taken with NCT and GAT.
DCB significantly reduces the risk of TLR as compared with PB without any effect on all-cause death. Evidence exists for differential efficacy according to the type of device used. Future trials investigating DCB angioplasty should include potentially more effective comparator therapies.
The diagnostic accuracy of differential diagnoses generated by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, including the generative pretrained transformer 3 (GPT-3) chatbot (ChatGPT-3) is unknown. This study evaluated the accuracy of differential-diagnosis lists generated by ChatGPT-3 for clinical vignettes with common chief complaints. General internal medicine physicians created clinical cases, correct diagnoses, and five differential diagnoses for ten common chief complaints. The rate of correct diagnosis by ChatGPT-3 within the ten differential-diagnosis lists was 28/30 (93.3%). The rate of correct diagnosis by physicians was still superior to that by ChatGPT-3 within the five differential-diagnosis lists (98.3% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.03). The rate of correct diagnosis by physicians was also superior to that by ChatGPT-3 in the top diagnosis (53.3% vs. 93.3%, p < 0.001). The rate of consistent differential diagnoses among physicians within the ten differential-diagnosis lists generated by ChatGPT-3 was 62/88 (70.5%). In summary, this study demonstrates the high diagnostic accuracy of differential-diagnosis lists generated by ChatGPT-3 for clinical cases with common chief complaints. This suggests that AI chatbots such as ChatGPT-3 can generate a well-differentiated diagnosis list for common chief complaints. However, the order of these lists can be improved in the future.
The DAPT score is a recently-proposed decision tool for guiding optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). It showed modest accuracy in prior derivation and validation cohorts of patients with ≥12 months DAPT. This study was aimed to evaluate the validity of the DAPT score in a cohort of patients with 6 or 12 months DAPT after implantation of predominantly second-generation drug-eluting stents. We analyzed data of patients enrolled in the ISAR-SAFE trial. Patients were classified into low (<2) or high (≥2) DAPT score groups. Primary ischaemic (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis or stroke) and bleeding (TIMI major or minor) outcomes were analyzed in the low and high DAPT score groups. Data of 3976 patients were available for DAPT score calculation. 2407 patients (60.5 %) were classified in the low DAPT score group and 1569 patients (39.5 %) in the high DAPT score group. In the low DAPT score group there were no significant differences between 6 and 12 months DAPT regarding ischaemic (1.0 % vs. 1.4 %, HR=0.74, 95 % CI, 0.35-1.57; p=0.43) or bleeding outcomes (0.3 % vs. 0.8 %, HR=0.44, 95 % CI, 0.13-1.42; p=0.17). In the high DAPT score group there were also no significant differences between 6 and 12 months DAPT regarding ischaemic (1.9 % vs. 1.8 %, HR=1.02, 95 % CI, 0.49-2.14; p=0.96) or bleeding (0.3 % vs. 0.5 %, HR=0.51, 95 % CI, 0.09-2.78; p=0.44) outcomes. In conclusion, the DAPT score failed to show a differential treatment effect in patients receiving 6 or 12 months DAPT after contemporary drug-eluting stent implantation.
IOP measured by DCT correlates with IOP measured by GAT or NCT with a roughly 3.0 mm Hg higher value, and these differences were greater in the patients with a thinner CCT. IOP measurements by both GAT and NCT significantly correlated with CCT; however, IOP measurement by DCT did not correlate with CCT. Our findings also indicate that OPA measured using DCT shows a positive correlation with patient age, IOP measurement by DCT, and pulse pressure.
Background: Improved outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remain an unmet clinical need. We assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of novel polymer-free sirolimusand probucol-eluting stent in diabetic patients enrolled in intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: test efficacy of sirolimus-and probucol-eluting versus zotarolimus-eluting stents 5 trial.Methods: In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, outcomes of diabetic patients treated with a sirolimus-and probucoleluting stent or a second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent were compared. The primary endpoint was a deviceoriented composite outcome comprising cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 5-year follow-up. Event-free survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were estimated from univariate Cox proportional hazards models.Results: A total of 870 patients with diabetes mellitus were treated with either a sirolimus-and probucol-eluting stent (n = 575) or a second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent (n = 295). At 5 years, the rate of device-oriented composite endpoint was comparable between the sirolimus-and probucol-eluting stent and the second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent (32.9 versus 33.4 %, HR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.76-1.26). No significant differences were observed between the sirolimus-and probucol-eluting stent and the second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent groups in the incidence of cardiac death (15.6 versus 16.7 % HR 0.92, 95 % CI 0.63-1.32), target-vessel MI (4.6 versus 6.6 %, HR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.40-1.34), and TLR (18.6 versus 18.8 %, HR 1.00, 95 % CI, 0.72-1.41). The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was low and similar in both groups (2.5 versus 2.6 %, HR 1.02, 95 % CI, 0.41-2.52).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.