MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102296549 · doi:10.1001/jama.289.7.853

Bivalirudin and Provisional Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Blockade Compared With Heparin and Planned Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Blockade During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2003· article· en· W2102296549 on OpenAlexaff
A. Michael Lincoff, John A. Bittl, Robert A. Harrington, Frederick Feit, Neal S. Kleiman, J. Daniel Jackman, Ian J. Sarembock, Douglas Spriggs, Ramin Ebrahimi, Gadi Keren, Eric A. Cohen, Amadeo Betriu, Walter Desmet, Dean J. Kereiakes, Wolfgang Rutsch, Robert G. Wilcox, Pim J. de Feyter, Alec Vahanian, Eric J. Topol

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBivalirudinConventional PCIAbciximabPercutaneous coronary interventionEptifibatideMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineAngioplastyCardiologyDirect thrombin inhibitorHeparinLoading doseAnesthesiaWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin has been associated with better efficacy and less bleeding than heparin during coronary balloon angioplasty but has not been widely tested during contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of bivalirudin, with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (Gp IIb/IIIa) inhibition on a provisional basis for complications during PCI, compared with heparin plus planned Gp IIb/IIIa blockade with regard to protection from periprocedural ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 trial, a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted among 6010 patients undergoing urgent or elective PCI at 233 community or referral hospitals in 9 countries from October 2001 through August 2002. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous bivalirudin (0.75-mg/kg bolus plus 1.75 mg/kg per hour for the duration of PCI), with provisional Gp IIb/IIIa inhibition (n = 2999), or heparin (65-U/kg bolus) with planned Gp IIb/IIIa inhibition (abciximab or eptifibatide) (n = 3011). Both groups received daily aspirin and a thienopyridine for at least 30 days after PCI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary composite end point was 30-day incidence of death, myocardial infarction, urgent repeat revascularization, or in-hospital major bleeding; the secondary composite end point was 30-day incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent repeat revascularization. RESULTS: Provisional Gp IIb/IIIa blockade was administered to 7.2% of patients in the bivalirudin group. By 30 days, the primary composite end point had occurred among 9.2% of patients in the bivalirudin group vs 10.0% of patients in the heparin-plus-Gp IIb/IIIa group (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.09; P =.32). The secondary composite end point occurred in 7.6% of patients in the bivalirudin vs 7.1% of patients in the heparin-plus-Gp IIb/IIIa groups (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.32; P =.40). Prespecified statistical criteria for noninferiority to heparin plus Gp IIb/IIIa were satisfied for both end points. In-hospital major bleeding rates were significantly reduced by bivalirudin (2.4% vs 4.1%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin with provisional Gp IIb/IIIa blockade is statistically not inferior to heparin plus planned Gp IIb/IIIa blockade during contemporary PCI with regard to suppression of acute ischemic end points and is associated with less bleeding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1,166
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207