Long-Term Mortality of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Catheterization for ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited contemporary data comparing long-term outcomes after cardiac catheterization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for STEMI (n=2413) and NSTEMI (n=1974) between 1999 and 2005 with at least 1 significant coronary lesion > or =75%. We compared adjusted mortality rates over restricted time intervals and the differential impact of early revascularization on mortality stratified by ST-elevation status. Between 1999 and 2007, 1274 patients died, with a median follow-up of 4 years. A piece-wise analysis showed a higher adjusted mortality risk for STEMI during the first 2 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.45 to 2.38) and a lower adjusted mortality risk for STEMI after 2 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.83). Compared with late or no revascularization, early revascularization was associated with a lower adjusted risk of mortality for both STEMI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.90) and NSTEMI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.89) (P for interaction=0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Among a contemporary cohort of acute MI patients with significant coronary disease during cardiac catheterization, STEMI was associated with a higher risk of short-term mortality, but NSTEMI was associated with a higher risk of long-term mortality. Early revascularization was associated with a similar improvement in long-term outcomes for both STEMI and NSTEMI. These data suggest that in clinical investigations of early revascularization among patients with NSTEMI, extended follow-up may be necessary to demonstrate treatment benefit.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".