Long term efficacy of abciximab bolus‐only compared to abciximab bolus and infusion after transradial coronary stenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No data are available on the long term efficacy of abciximab bolus-only with aspirin and clopidogrel pretreatment and systematic coronary stenting. Our objective was to evaluate the 3-year clinical outcomes in the EASY trial. METHODS: After a bolus of abciximab (0.25 mg/kg) and uncomplicated transradial coronary stenting, 1,005 patients were randomized either to same-day home discharge and no infusion (bolus-only group, n = 504) or to overnight hospitalization and 12 hours abciximab infusion (bolus + infusion group, n = 501). In contrast, 343 patients were not randomized after stenting for safety reasons and received abciximab bolus and infusion (not-randomized group). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was evaluated. RESULTS: Up to 3 years, the incidence of MACE remained similar in the two randomized groups, 14% in bolus-only vs. 17% in bolus + infusion (P = 0.38). Similar efficacy was observed in subgroups analysis including higher-risk patients such as those with diabetes, unstable angina or non-ST elevation MI. Conversely, the incidence of MACE remained significantly higher in patients not-randomized post-PCI at all time intervals (P < 0.0001). The difference in outcomes between randomized and not-randomized patients was mostly accounted by the higher rates of MI, TVR as survival rate remained similar. CONCLUSION: In patients pretreated with aspirin and clopidogrel and undergoing uncomplicated coronary artery stenting, abciximab bolus-only was associated with similar outcomes compared with bolus followed by infusion, up to 3 years after PCI. Conversely, patients with suboptimal results or clinical complications during PCI remained at higher risk of late revascularization or MI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".