Temporal management patterns and outcomes of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes in patients with kidney dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine: (i) the temporal changes in the management pattern; (ii) the reasons for any treatment disparities; (iii) the relationship between invasive treatment and outcome, among acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with vs. without kidney dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Canadian ACS I, ACS II registries and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) were prospective, multi-centre, observational studies of patients with ACS. From 1999 to 2007, non-ST elevation (NSTE) ACS patients were recruited in ACS I (n = 3295; 1999-2001), ACS II (n = 1956; 2002-2003), and GRACE (n = 6491; 2004-2007) in Canada. Using the four-variable Modified Diet in Renal Disease equation, we stratified the study population (n = 11,377) into three groups based on their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and examined their treatment and outcome. While in-hospital use of coronary angiography and revascularization increased over time in all groups (P < 0.001), patients with kidney dysfunction were less likely to undergo invasive management (P < 0.001). Unadjusted 1 year mortality was lower among patients receiving in-hospital coronary angiography within all eGFR categories (> or =60 mL/min/1.73 m(2): 2.5 vs. 7.6%, P < 0.001; 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2): 8.0 vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001; <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2): 27.5 vs. 41.5%, P = 0.043). In-hospital revascularization was independently associated with lower 1-year mortality (adjusted OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.77, P = 0.001), irrespective of eGFR (P for heterogeneity = 0.39). Underestimation of patient risk was the most common barrier to an invasive treatment strategy. CONCLUSION: Despite temporal increases in invasive management of NSTE-ACS, patients with kidney dysfunction are more commonly treated conservatively, with an associated worse outcome. In-hospital revascularization was independently associated with improved survival, irrespective of eGFR. Randomized controlled trials involving patients with kidney dysfunction are needed to confirm whether more aggressive treatment will improve their poor outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".