Treatment of Reinfarction After Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early reinfarction after thrombolytic therapy is associated with adverse outcomes and increased mortality. Among patients with reinfarction in the 1992 Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO I) and the 1998 Assessment of the Safety of a New Thrombolytic (ASSENT 2) trials, we investigated temporal and regional differences in the use of repeat thrombolysis, revascularization (angioplasty and/or bypass surgery), or conservative measures and the outcomes of each management strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the 4% of patients (n=2301) who experienced reinfarction after thrombolytic therapy were studied. Baseline characteristics, 30-day mortality, and incidence of total and hemorrhagic strokes were compared among the 3 treatment groups. The 30-day mortality did not differ between the repeat thrombolysis and revascularization groups (P=0.72), and it was significantly lower among patients treated by these 2 strategies than in those treated conservatively (11% and 11% versus 28%, respectively; P<0.001). Stroke rates did not differ significantly between the 3 treatment strategies (P=0.49). From 1992 to 1998, the percentage of reinfarction patients treated with repeat thrombolysis decreased from 29.3% to 18.5% in US centers and from 51.4% to 41.9% in all other centers (P<0.001). In contrast, use of revascularization procedures increased from 33.5% to 47.9% in US centers and from 8.1% to 23.0% in all other centers (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat thrombolysis and revascularization are associated with significantly lower mortality among reinfarction patients. Randomized trials are necessary to assess the exact risks and benefits of rethrombolysis versus interventional revascularization in this subset of high-risk patients presenting with reinfarction after thrombolytic therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".