Fibrinolysis Versus Primary Percutaneous Intervention in ST‐elevation Myocardial Infarction With Long Interhospital Transfer Distances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend rapid initiation of reperfusion therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), with short-distance transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) preferred over fibrinolysis in non-pPCI-capable hospitals. Comparative outcomes in patients with longer transfer times are unclear. HYPOTHESIS: We designed this study to assess whether administering fibrinolytics prior to initiating longer-distance interhospital transfer in patients with STEMI leads to a delay in transfer or worse outcomes compared with transfer for pPCI. METHODS: We analyzed 259 STEMI patients transferred to a receiving pPCI-capable center in eastern North Carolina. The patients were divided into 2 groups, with 43 (16.6%) transferred for pPCI and the remaining 216 (83.4%) transferred following fibrinolysis. The primary endpoint was door-to-door time. We also compared stroke, death, significant bleeding, and combined outcomes between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The median door-to-door time was similar for pPCI and fibrinolysis patients (135 vs 128 minutes; P = 0.71). Median door-to-balloon time among pPCI patients was 182 minutes from the point of arrival at the referral hospital and 49 minutes from arrival at the receiving pPCI center. Median door-to-needle time in the fibrinolysis patients was 30 minutes, with rescue PCI eventually performed in 81 (37.5%) patients. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with pPCI (9.3%) compared with fibrinolysis patients (1.9%; P = 0.03). Combined incidence of stroke, significant bleeding, and death was 14% in pPCI patients compared with 7% in fibrinolysis patients (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: In settings with longer transfer distances, administering fibrinolytics prior to transfer to a pPCI-capable center did not cause any significant delay in transfer or worse outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".