Outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes and prior percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of three randomized clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We sought to characterize the outcomes of patients with a prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who presented with a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the 30 and 180 day outcomes of 3012 patients with prior PCI and 21 154 patients without prior PCI enrolled in three randomized ACS trials (GUSTO IIb, PURSUIT, and PARAGON-B). The median (25th, 75th percentile) interval between the prior PCI and randomization was 647 (123, 1585) days. Patients with prior PCI had significantly more adverse baseline clinical characteristics, left ventricular dysfunction, and multi-vessel coronary artery disease. After adjusting for baseline characteristics and treatment, we found that patients with prior PCI had a significantly lower mortality rate at 30 days [hazard ratio (HR), 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.80; P=0.0006] and 180 days (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; P=0.029). However, no difference was observed in the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.08; P=0.42) or 180 days (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.13; P=0.90). Patients with prior PCI had a higher rate of MI at 180 days (13.3 vs. 12.0%; P=0.045). Prior-PCI patients had lower incidences of in-hospital cardiogenic shock, congestive heart failure (CHF), and atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSION: Patients with prior PCI who present with non-ST-segment elevation ACS have a lower mortality rate than those without prior PCI.
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 | 0.023 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".