Intracoronary bolus‐only compared with intravenous bolus plus infusion of tirofiban application in patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this pilot study was to compare intracoronary bolus-only with standard intravenous bolus plus maintenance infusion of tirofiban with respect to improvement in myocardial reperfusion after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI). BACKGROUND: Changes in clinical practice may obviate the need for a maintenance infusion of small molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in current practice. METHODS: Forty-nine patients undergoing p-PCI were randomized to either intracoronary bolus-only (n = 25) or intravenous bolus plus infusion (n = 24) of tirofiban. The primary end point was coronary hemodynamic indices of microvascular perfusion measured 4-5 days after p-PCI. The secondary end points were ST segment resolution at 90 min, the corrected TIMI frame count and myocardial blush grade. At 6 months, echocardiography and technetium-99m single-photon-emission computed tomography were performed. RESULTS: Microvascular perfusion did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups: index of microvascular resistance (27 ± 13 vs. 35 ± 15 U, P = 0.08) and coronary flow reserve (2.2 ± 0.7 vs. 1.9 ± 0.6, P = 0.25). The corrected TIMI frame counts assessed in the first (P = 0.13) and the second (P = 0.09) catheterization or the myocardial blush grades evaluated immediately (P = 0.23) and 4-5 days after MI (P = 1.00) were not significantly different between the two groups. At 6 months, there was no difference between the two groups in infarct size, left ventricular volumes, or ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: The standard intravenous bolus plus maintenance infusion of tirofiban in p-PCI is not superior to intracoronary bolus-only administration with respect to microvascular perfusion. Further, adequately powered randomized trials are warranted to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with this strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".