Evaluation of a regional ST-elevation myocardial infarction primary percutaneous coronary intervention program at the Rouge Valley Health System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains the second leading cause of death in Canada. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been recognized as an effective method for treating STEMI. Improved access to primary PCI can be achieved through the implementation of regional PCI centres, which was the impetus for implementing the PCI program in an east Toronto hospital in 2009. As such, the purpose of this study was to measure the efficacy of this program regional expansion. METHODS: A retrospective review of 101 patients diagnosed with STEMI from May to Sept 2010 was conducted. The average door-to-balloon time for these STEMI patients was calculated and the door-to-balloon times using different methods of arrival were analyzed. Method of arrival was by one of three ways: paramedic initiated referral; patient walk-ins to PCI centre emergency department; or transfer after walk-in to community hospital emergency department. RESULTS: The study found that mean door-to balloon time for PCI was 112.5 minutes. When the door-to-balloon times were compared across the three arrival methods, patients who presented by paramedic-initiated referral had significantly shorter door-to-balloon times, (89.5 minutes) relative to those transferred (120.9 minutes) and those who walked into a PCI centre (126.7 minutes) (p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the partnership between the hospital and its EMS partners should be continued, and paramedic initiated referral should be expanded across Canada and EMS systems where feasible, as this level of coverage does not currently exist nationwide. Investments in regional centres of excellence and the creation of EMS partnerships are needed to enhance access to primary PCI.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".