Delays to reperfusion therapy in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the AMI-QUEBEC Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Through the AMI-QUEBEC Study we sought to describe delays to reperfusion therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to identify factors associated with prolonged delays. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of all consecutive patients with STEMI admitted to 17 hospitals in the province of Quebec in 2003 to obtain data on the time from presentation to reperfusion therapy. Data were available for 1189 (83.0%) of 1432 patients. RESULTS: The median delay to reperfusion therapy was 32 minutes (first and third quartile [Q1, Q3] 20, 49) for 535 patients who received fibrinolytic therapy, 109 minutes (Q1, Q3 79, 150) for 455 patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at the initial hospital of presentation and 142 minutes (Q1, Q3 115, 194) for 199 patients who underwent primary PCI after an interhospital transfer. Patients who presented outside daytime working hours, those who received primary PCI and those who required interhospital transfer for primary PCI were less likely to receive reperfusion therapy within current recommended times (odds ratios [ORs] 0.49, 0.56 and 0.15, respectively). Increased age was associated with prolonged delays only among patients who received fibrinolytic therapy (OR for each 10-year increase in age 0.95, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.93-0.99 for fibrinolytic therapy and 0.99, 95% CrI 0.95-1.05, for primary PCI). INTERPRETATION: In 2003, many patients with STEMI in Quebec were not treated within the recommended times. Delays may be reduced by reorganizing pre-and in-hospital care for patients with STEMI to expedite delivery of reperfusion therapy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".