MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149648649 · doi:10.1136/hrt.2009.180448

Infarct size and left ventricular function in the PRoximal Embolic Protection in Acute myocardial infarction and Resolution of ST-segment Elevation (PREPARE) trial: ancillary cardiovascular magnetic resonance study

2009· article· en· W2149648649 on OpenAlexaff
Joost D.E. Haeck, Wichert J. Kuijt, K. T. Koch, Luc Bilodeau, Josè P.S. Henriques, Wim J. Rohling, Jan Baan, Marije M. Vis, Robin Nijveldt, Nan van Geloven, Maarten Groenink, Jan J. Piek, Jan G.P. Tijssen, Mitchell W. Krucoff, Robbert J. de Winter

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersUniversiteit van Amsterdam
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionConventional PCIEjection fractionPercutaneous coronary interventionLeft ventricular thrombusMagnetic resonance imagingThrombusST segmentCardiac magnetic resonance imagingRadiologyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with combined proximal embolic protection and thrombus aspiration results in smaller final infarct size and improved left ventricular function assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients compared with primary PCI alone. Background Primary PCI with the Proxis system improves immediate microvascular flow post-procedure as measured by ST-segment resolution, which could result in better outcomes. METHODS: The ancillary CMR study included 206 STEMI patients who were enrolled in the PRoximal Embolic Protection in Acute myocardial infarction and Resolution of ST-Elevation (PREPARE) trial. CMR imaging was assessed between 4 and 6 months after the index procedure. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in final infarct size (6.1 g/m(2) vs 6.3 g/m(2), p = 0.78) and left ventricular ejection fraction (50% vs 50%, p = 0.46) between both groups. Also, systolic wall thickening in the infarct area (44% vs 45%, p = 0.93) or the extent of transmural segments (8.3% of segments vs 8.3% of segments, p = 0.60) showed no significant differences. The incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events at 6 months was similar in the Proxis and control group (8% vs 10%, respectively, p = 0.43). Conclusions Primary PCI with combined proximal embolic protection and thrombus aspiration in STEMI patients did not result in significant differences in final infarct size or left ventricular function at follow-up CMR. In addition, there was no difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events at 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: number ISRCTN71104460.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207