Outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute anterior myocardial infarction: Results from the INFUSE‐AMI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical, angiographic, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) results in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: DM has been associated with increased mortality in patients with STEMI, yet the mechanisms underpinning this association have not been completely elucidated. METHODS: Overall, 451 patients (51 diabetics) from the INFUSE-AMI trial were studied. They presented with an anterior STEMI due to an occluded left anterior descending artery (LAD) and underwent bivalirudin-supported primary PCI with or without intralesion abciximab and with or without thrombus aspiration. Angiographic baseline and post-procedure parameters, cMRI at 30 days, and clinical follow-up at 30 days and at 1 year were compared between diabetic and nondiabetic patients. RESULTS: Patients with DM had significantly more comorbidities and more extensive LAD disease than nondiabetics. Primary PCI was equally effective in restoring coronary flow in both groups and the infarct size at 30 days was similar (14.3% [7.1, 24.5] vs. 17.3% [8.1, 23.6], respectively, P = 0.55). Diabetic patients had more major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 1 year (16.5% vs. 8.0%, P = 0.04). Stent thrombosis within 30 days after primary PCI was higher in diabetic than in nondiabetic subjects (4.3% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DM presenting with STEMI had a higher baseline risk profile than those without DM. Although reperfusion success and infarct size were similar, diabetic patients experienced more death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis, and revascularization than nondiabetics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".