Improving myocardial salvage in late presentation acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction with proximal embolic protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Late-presenting ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients possess larger, more organized coronary thrombus leading to greater ventricular remodeling and arrhythmia despite angioplasty and pharmacological therapies. We hypothesized that myocardial injury would be reduced in late STEMI by proximal embolic protection (PEP). METHODS: 31 patients with first STEMI 12-24 hr after pain onset and TIMI 0-1 flow were treated with or without PEP (cohort design matched for age, gender, and infarct-related artery). Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance determined myocardial function, area at risk, necrosis, salvaged myocardium, and arrythmogenic peri-infarct region. Clinical follow-up was performed. RESULTS: Pain to balloon time was 18 hr (95% CI 15.5-21.2 h), and Q waves were present in 87%. Angioplasty was performed with PEP in 15 and without in 16. Left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction were similar (EF 46.9% vs. 49.0% without PEP, P = 0.9). Although myocardial necrosis was similar (32.5 vs. 37.3% of LV, P = 0.3), PEP improved microvascular obstruction (8.7 vs. 11.2% of LV, P = 0.02) salvaged myocardium (39.6% vs. 29.6% of area at risk, P = 0.001), and the peri-infarct region (20.9 vs. 29.6% of infarct, P < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, the use of PEP was an independent predictor of decreased arrythmogenic peri-infarct region and greater myocardial salvage. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, PEP improved myocardial salvage and the arrythmogenic peri-infarct region in late-presentation STEMI. Randomized trials are required to assess the clinical impact of improving salvaged myocardium and the peri-infarct region with PEP.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".