Non-culprit coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the APEX-AMI trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine the incidence of and propensity for non-culprit interventions performed at the time of the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and its association with 90-day outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the incidence, propensity for, and associated 90-day outcomes following non-culprit interventions performed at the time of primary PCI among ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVD). Of the 5373 patients who underwent primary PCI in the APEX-AMI trial, 2201 had MVD. Of those, 217 (9.9%) underwent non-infarct-related arteries (IRA) PCI, whereas 1984 (90.1%) underwent PCI of the IRA alone. Ninety-day death and death/CHF/shock were higher in the non-IRA group compared with the IRA-only PCI group (12.5 vs. 5.6%, P (log-rank) < 0.001 and 17.4 vs. 12.0%, P (log-rank) = 0.020, respectively). After adjusting for patient and procedural characteristics as well as propensity for performing non-IRA PCI, this procedure remained independently associated with an increased hazard of 90-day mortality [adjusted hazard ratio 2.44, 95% CI (1.55-3.83), P < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Non-culprit coronary interventions were performed at the time of primary PCI in 10% of MVD patients and were significantly associated with increased mortality. Our data support current guideline recommendations discouraging the performance of such procedures in stable primary PCI patients. Prospective randomized study of this issue may be warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".