MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Temporal Trends in Cardiogenic Shock Treatment and Outcomes Among Ontario Patients With Myocardial Infarction Between 1992 and 2008

2011· article· en· W2157530658 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Husam Abdel‐Qadir, Joan Ivanov, Peter C. Austin, Jack V. Tu, Vladimír Džavík

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heart Research CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health OntarioSunnybrook Health Science CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre International de Recherche sur le CancerAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockMyocardial infarctionRevascularizationConfidence intervalInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)CardiologyMortality rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated that emergent revascularization improves survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). However, rates of uptake and impact on outcomes remain uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 9750 patients (3.1%) with CS among 311 183 AMI patients in the Ontario Myocardial Infarction Database between 1992 and 2008 (55.8% men; mean age, 73 years). CS incidence, mortality, revascularization, and transfers from nonrevascularization sites were studied over 3 periods: period 1, before the 1999 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association AMI guidelines recommending urgent revascularization for patients <75 years; period 2 (1999 to 2004); and period 3, after 2004 guideline revisions suggesting revascularization for patients ≥75 years. Compared with period 1, period 3 was marked by significantly lower CS incidence (3.4% versus 2.6%), increase in transfers from nonrevascularization sites (10.6% versus 23.9%), and adjusted 1-year mortality rates (81.9% versus 71.5%; all comparisons statistically significant). Admission to nonrevascularization sites was associated with lower revascularization rates (8.6% versus 46.6%, P<0.001) and higher adjusted 1-year mortality rates (78.8% [95% confidence interval, 77.4 to 80.2] versus 71.9% [95% confidence interval, 69.8 to 74.1]). Patients ≥75 years of age were less likely to be revascularized or transferred. The greatest increase in transfers from nonrevascularization sites occurred between periods 1 and 2 for patients <75 years (16.5% to 31.4%; P<0.001) and between periods 2 and 3 for patients ≥75 years (6.7% to 12.8%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Publication of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines was followed by increased revascularization and transfer rates, along with declining mortality rates among Ontario AMI patients with CS. These results highlight possibilities for further improvement, particularly among patients eligible for transfer from nonrevascularization sites.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207