Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elevated left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) has been reported to predict an increased mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. However, its prognostic value in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of NSTEMI patients who underwent coronary angiography between January 2013 and June 2014. We excluded patients who did not undergo LVEDP measurements. Baseline and angiographic characteristics, in-hospital heart failure as well as in-hospital mortality were recorded. RESULTS: After exclusion, 367 patients were included in the final analysis. The median (interquartile range) LVEDP was 19 mm Hg (14 - 24 mm Hg). By receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the optimal cutoff value for predicting in-hospital mortality was 22 mm Hg (area under the curve 0.80, sensitivity 80%, and specificity 71%). Of 367 patients, 109 patients (29.7%) had LVEDP > 22 mm Hg. Patients with LVEDP > 22 mm Hg had a greater number of comorbidities. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of multi-vessel disease. Patients with LVEDP > 22 mm Hg had a significantly higher rate of in-hospital heart failure (22.0% vs. 13.2%, P = 0.03) and in-hospital mortality (3.7% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.03) than those with LVEDP ≤ 22 mm Hg. CONCLUSION: Elevated LVEDP was significantly associated with a higher in-hospital mortality in patients with NSTEMI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".