Acetylsalicylic Acid Use in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Peptic Ulcer Bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) but is also a risk factor for peptic ulcer disease (PUD) bleeding. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors associated with continued ASA use in patients with AMI who develop PUD bleeding. METHODS: AMI patients who developed PUD bleeding during the same hospitalization at two tertiary care hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, between January 1999 and December 2006, were evaluated retrospectively. Multivariate analysis was used to determine predictors of the primary outcome of continued ASA use during PUD bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were analyzed. Thirty-eight patients (37%) were continued on ASA, while 64 (63%) had ASA discontinued during their hospitalization. On multivariate regression analysis, significant predictors of continued ASA use included lowrisk ulcer stigmata on endoscopy (OR 3.7; 95% CI 1.4 to 10.2; P=0.01) and AMI requiring coronary intervention (OR 8.2; 95% CI 2.1 to 32.1; P=0.002). The mean (+/- SD) blood transfusion requirement was 3.9+/-3.6 units. The 30-day rebleeding and mortality rates were 14% and 14%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The continued use of ASA during AMI and PUD bleeding was variable. However, patients with low-risk ulcers and those who received coronary intervention were more likely to have ASA continued during PUD bleeding. Further studies evaluating the gastrointestinal risk of immediate ASA use in AMI with acute PUD bleeding are required.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".