Myocardial protection with enalaprilat in patients unresponsive to ischemic preconditioning during percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardioprotection due to angiotensin enzyme inhibitors is attributed, at least in part, to the inhibition of bradykinin breakdown and the preconditioning effect of the elevated endogenous bradykinin level. We have previously shown that in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, one 120-second balloon inflation is insufficient to precondition the heart. The objective of the present study was to examine whether the administration of enalaprilat to these patients results in protection. Twenty patients underwent two 120-second coronary artery occlusions separated by a reperfusion interval of 10 min. Ten patients were given 50 microg x min-1 enalaprilat in an intracoronary infusion between the balloon inflations, whereas the others received an infusion of saline. In the latter control patients, there were no significant differences in ST-segment elevation between the consecutive occlusions (peak ST: 1.61 +/- 0.17 vs. 1.61 +/- 0.16 mV; time to reach 0.5 mV ST elevation: 16 +/- 4 vs. 22 +/- 7 s; mean ST: 1.03 +/- 0.12 vs. 1.02 +/- 0.11 mV). In the patients who received enalaprilat before the second balloon inflation, the ST-segment elevation was significantly less pronounced and slower during the second inflation than during the first (peak ST: 1.80 +/- 0.18 vs. 1.41 +/- 0.19 mV; time to reach 0.5 mV ST elevation: 18 +/- 4 vs. 30 +/- 4 s; mean ST: 1.04 +/- 0.11 vs. 0.85 +/- 0.14 mV). We conclude that enalaprilat administered during percutaneous coronary intervention provides protection to patients who do not have a protective response to the initial balloon inflation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".