Predictors and Prognostic Impact of Recurrent Myocardial Infarction in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction, Heart Failure, or Both Following a First Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: IMS: Recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) is common after a first MI and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Predictors and prognosis of a recurrent MI with contemporary management are not well known. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the predictors and prognostic impact of a first recurrent MI in 10,599 patients with left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, or both following a first MI from the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT) cohort. During a median follow-up of 27.4 months, 861 patients (9.6%) had a recurrent MI. The median time to recurrence was 136 days (quartiles 35-361 days), with a declining rate of recurrent MI within the first 3 months. The strongest predictors of recurrent MI were reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate, unstable angina, diabetes, and age. Mortality was markedly elevated (20.5%) within the first 7 days of a recurrent MI. Patients who survived 7 days after a recurrent MI continued to be at increased risk of death compared with patients without a recurrent MI and the risk of death remained elevated more than two-fold a year after the recurrent MI (adjusted hazards ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.7-3.2). One-year mortality for the entire VALIANT cohort was 10.3%, whereas 38.3% of the patients were dead 1 year after recurrent MI. Early reinfarctions (within 1 month) was associated with significantly higher 30-day mortality than later reinfarctions. CONCLUSION: Even in the context of contemporary treatment, a recurrent MI confers a significantly increased risk of death in patients following a high-risk first MI. Strategies aimed at reducing recurrent MI will thus likely prolong survival in post-MI survivors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".