MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023297289 · doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(00)00873-1

Angiographic findings and clinical correlates in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry

2000· article· en· W2023297289 on OpenAlexaff
S. Chiu Wong, Timothy A. Sanborn, Lynn A. Sleeper, John G. Webb, Robert Pilchik, David A. Hart, Slawomir Mejnartowicz, Tracy A Antonelli, Richard A. Lange, J. French, Geoffrey Bergman, Thierry H. LeJemtel, Judith S. Hochman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Cardiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockTIMIMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineAngiographyThrombolysisShock (circulatory)Heart failureSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: We sought to delineate the angiographic findings, clinical correlates and in-hospital outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND: Patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction carry a grave prognosis. Detailed angiographic findings in a large, prospectively identified cohort of patients with CS are currently lacking. METHODS: We compared the clinical characteristics, angiographic findings, and in-hospital outcomes of 717 patients selected to undergo angiography and 442 not selected, overall and by shock etiology: left or right ventricular failure versus mechanical complications. RESULTS: Patients who underwent angiography had lower baseline risk and a better hemodynamic profile than those who did not. Overall, 15.5% of the patients had significant left main lesions on angiography, and 53.4% had three-vessel disease, with higher rates of both for those with ventricular failure, compared with patients who had mechanical complications. Among patients who underwent angiography, those with ventricular failure had significantly lower in-hospital mortality than patients with mechanical complications (45.2% vs. 57.0%; p = 0.021). Importantly, for patients with ventricular failure, in-hospital mortality also correlated with disease severity: 35.0% for no or single-vessel disease versus 50.8% for three-vessel disease. Furthermore, mortality was associated with the culprit lesion location (78.6% in left main lesion, 69.7% in saphenous vein graft lesions, 42.4% in circumflex lesions, 42.3% in left anterior descending lesions, and 37.4% in right coronary artery lesions), and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade (46.5% in TIMI 0/1, 49.4% in TIMI 2 and 26% in TIMI 3). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent angiographic study in the SHOCK Trial Registry had a more benign cardiac risk profile, more favorable hemodynamic findings and lower in-hospital mortality than those for whom angiograms were not obtained. Patients with CS caused by ventricular failure had more severe atherosclerosis, and a different distribution of culprit vessel involvement but lower in-hospital mortality, than those with mechanical complications. Overall in-hospital survival correlates with the extent of coronary artery obstructions, location of culprit lesion and baseline coronary TIMI flow grade.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations129
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of CardiologySame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207