Long-Term Mortality of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a previous substudy of the GUSTO-I trial, we observed better functional and quality-of-life outcomes among patients in the United States (US patients) compared with patients in Canada. Rates of invasive therapy were significantly higher in the United States and were associated with a small mortality benefit (0.4%, adjusted P=0.02). We sought to determine whether Canadian-US differences in practice patterns in GUSTO-I had an impact on 5-year mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mortality data for 23,105 US and 2898 Canadian patients enrolled in GUSTO-I were obtained from national mortality databases. Median follow-up was 5.46 years in the US and 5.33 years in the Canadian cohort. Five-year mortality rate was 19.6% among US and 21.4% among Canadian patients (P=0.02). After baseline adjustment, enrollment in Canada was associated with a higher hazard of death (1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.28, P=0.001). Revascularization rates during the index hospitalization in the United States were almost 3 times those in Canada: 30.5% versus 11.4% for angioplasty and 13.1% versus 4.0% for bypass surgery (P<0.01 for both). After accounting for revascularization status as a time-dependent covariate, country was no longer a significant predictor of long-term mortality. These results were confirmed in a propensity-matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest, for the first time, that the more conservative pattern of care with regard to early revascularization in Canada for ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction may have a detrimental effect on long-term survival. Our results have important policy implications for cardiac care in countries and healthcare systems wherein use of invasive procedures is similarly conservative.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".