Long‐term outcomes following drug‐eluting stents versus bare metal stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A real‐world analysis of 11,181 patients from the british columbia cardiac registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug eluting stents (DES) are associated with reduced risk of restenosis when compared with bare metal stents (BMS). Their use in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is debated, owing to concerns about stent thrombosis. There are limited real-world data comparing DES versus BMS in STEMI. We conducted an observational analysis in this setting and rigorously adjusted for treatment selection bias. METHODS: We analyzed 11,181 consecutive patients with acute STEMI who received either DES or BMS during 2008-2014 in the British Columbia Cardiac Registry. We analyzed target vessel revascularization (TVR) and mortality at 2 years. RESULTS: Multivariable-adjusted, propensity-matched and inverse probability-treatment weighted analyses found DES to be associated with early and late survival up to 2 years but not TVR. However, when adjusting for measured and unmeasured confounders, instrumental variable (IV) analyses demonstrated that DES use was associated with reduced TVR up to 2 years (Δ = -6.7%, 95% CI: -10.0%, -3.4%, P < 0.001). DES use was not associated with mortality at 1 year (Δ = -2.3%, 95% CI: -5.0%, 0.4%, P = 0.100) but associated with reduced mortality at 2 years (Δ = -5.4%, 95% CI: -8.3%, -2.5%, P < 0.001). Stratified IV analyses indicated that this long-term survival benefit was largely attributable to the second generation DES. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with STEMI, when adjusting for measured and unmeasured factors, DES use was associated with reduced TVR and long-term survival beyond 1 year. This long-term survival was largely attributable to the second generation DES. These real-world data are reassuring and support the use of DES for STEMI. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".