MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

046 MECHANICAL THROMBECTOMY USE IS ASSOCIATED WITH DECREASED MORTALITY IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH PRIMARY PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION (9935 PATIENTS FROM THE LONDON HEART ATTACK GROUP)

2013· article· en· W2092563642 on OpenAlexaff
Bhavik Modi, Daniel A. Jones, Krishnaraj S. Rathod, Mohammed Akhtar, Ajay Jain, Sundeep Kalra, T Crake, Pascal Meier, Zoë Astroulakis, C Dollery, M. Özkur, Roby Rakhit, C Knight, Miles Dalby, I. Malik, Nicholas Bunce, Patrick Zhan‐Yun Lim, G Virdi, Mark Whitbread, Roshan Weerackody, Anthony Mathur, Simon Redwood, Philip MacCarthy, Andrew Wragg

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionThrombusCardiologyInternal medicinePercutaneousClinical endpointRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PPCI) post ST-Segment Myocardial Infarction (STEMI), distal embolisation of thrombus may lead to failure to re-establish normal flow in the infarct-related artery. Manual thrombus aspiration has been shown to improve coronary perfusion as assessed by time to ST-segment resolution and myocardial blush grade. Evidence supporting the benefit of thrombus aspiration on clinical outcomes, however, is limited and inconsistent. We aimed to assess the impact of manual thrombectomy on mortality in patients presenting with STEMI across all PPCI centres in London over a 5 year period from 2007 until 2012. Table 1 No thrombectomy Thrombectomy p Value Gender (female) 1378 (22.8%) 606 (21.2%) 0.09 Diabetes 954 (16.7%) 398 (14.6%) 0.012 Age 62.9±13.2 60.6±13.1 p<0.0001 Previous myocardial infarction 811 (14.7%) 311 (11.9%) 0.001 Previous CABG 182 (3.1%) 73 (2.6%) 0.245 Previous PCI 671 (11.8%) 333 (12.1%) 0.622 Cardiogenic shock 375 (6.3%) 177 (6.3%) 0.988 GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor 3978 (68.8%) 2334 (87.0%) p<0.0001 Access (radial) 1175 (19.9%) 936 (33.1%) p<0.0001 Procedural Success 4566 (86.7%) 2259 (89.5%) 0.025 Methods This was an observational cohort study of 9935 consecutive patients with STEMI treated with PPCI between 2007 and 2012 at eight tertiary cardiac centres across London, UK. Patient's details were recorded at the time of the procedure into the British Cardiac Intervention Society (BCIS) database. Outcome was assessed by all-cause mortality. Anonymous datasets from the eight centres were merged for analysis. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 2.0 years (IQR range 1.1–3.1 years). Results Of the 9935 consecutive STEMI patients presenting for PPCI, 2859 had mechanical thrombectomy. Patients who had manual thrombectomy were significantly younger (average age 60.6 vs 62.9) and were less likely to have had a previous myocardial infarction (11.9% of thrombectomy patients vs 14.7% of non-thrombectomy patients). Patients receiving manual thromectomy were found to be significantly more likely to have had PPCI via a radial approach (33.1% in thrombectomy patients vs 19.9% in non-thromectomy patients). Procedural success (defined as TIMI 3 flow at the end of procedure) was found to be significantly more likely in patients receiving manual thrombectomy (89.5% vs 86.7%) (table 1). Patients with thrombectomy use had similar unadjusted all-cause mortality rates to those without thrombectomy use (12.7% vs 16.5%, p=NS) during the 5-year follow-up period (figure 1). After multivariable adjustment thrombectomy use was associated with significantly decreased mortality rates (HR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.9, p=0.04). Figure 1 Kaplan-Meier curve showing cumulative probability of all-cause mortality according to thrombectomy use. Conclusion Mechanical thrombectomy use appears to be associated with improved outcome, in the form of decreased mortality, in this large observational trial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207