Effects of High Loading Dose of Clopidogrel in ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction Treated with Fibrinolytic Agent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different loading doses of clopidogrel on ST segment resolution on ECG, changes in cardiac enzyme levels and serum levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) in patients with ST elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytic therapy. METHODS: Patients admitted to our cardiology clinic with a diagnosis of STEMI and treated with fibrinolytic therapy were included: Group 1 (n=58) received a 300 mg loading dose of clopidogrel, Group 2 (n=55) a 450 mg loading dose and Group 3 (n=59) a 600 mg loading dose. A 75 mg/d maintanence dose of clopidogrel was given in all groups. RESULTS: All demographic characteristics and baseline laboratory parameters were statistically similar among three groups (p > 0.05). When ST resolution periods were compared, most patients in Group 3 had ST resolution at 30 minutes; Group 2 at 60 minutes and Group 1 at 90 minutes (p < 0.05). Peak levels of creatine kinase (CK) and CK-MB were as follows: Group 3, 8(th) hour, Group 1 and 2, 12(th) hour. Peak levels of those enzymes were significantly lower in Group 3 than in Group 1 and 2 ( < 0.05). Although basal hs-CRP levels of all groups were similar, the increase in hs-CRP levels at 48 hours was lower with higher clopidogrel loading doses (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this study comparing three different clopidogrel loading doses, the higher doses provided earlier ECG resolution, earlier and lower peak CK and CK-MB levels and lower levels of hs-CRP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".