Effects of aspiration thrombectomy on necrosis size and ejection fraction after transradial percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of routine aspiration thrombectomy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. METHODS: Patients in the EArly Discharge after Transradial Stenting of CoronarY Arteries in Acute Myocardial Infarction (n = 105) study were treated with aspirin, clopidogrel, and abciximab within 6 hr of symptoms onset. Operators were allowed to use 6 Fr Export aspiration catheter at their discretion. In this observational analysis, we compared acute and late results in patients treated with and without thrombectomy using cardiac biomarkers, angiographic, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), and clinical parameters. RESULTS: Patients in the thrombectomy group (n = 44) had longer symptoms to balloon time (196 ± 86 min vs. 164 ± 62, P = 0.039) and higher incidence of preprocedural TIMI flow grade 0 or 1 (84% vs. 64%, P = 0.028). Following PCI, both groups had similar incidence of TIMI flow grade 3 (93 vs. 92%, P = 0.73) and myocardial blush grade 2 or 3 (80 vs. 77%, P = 0.86), respectively. Patients in thrombectomy group had significantly higher post-PCI maximum values of creatine kinase-MB (P = 0.0007) and troponin T (P = 0.0010). Accordingly, post-PCI myocardial necrosis by CMR was higher (P = 0.0030) in patients in the thrombectomy group. At 6-month follow-up, necrosis size remained higher (20.7% ± 13.3% vs. 13.5% ± 11.1%, P = 0.012) in the thrombectomy group. Ejection fraction at 6 months was 65% ± 9% in patients in thrombectomy group compared to 70% ± 11% in patients without (P = 0.070). Results were not affected by initial TIMI flow or symptoms to balloon time. Clinical events remained comparable in both groups at 12 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presenting within 6 hr of symptoms and undergoing primary angioplasty with maximal antiplatelet therapy, acute and late results did not suggest significant benefit for additional aspiration thrombectomy, irrespective of initial TIMI flow or total ischemic time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".