The safety and feasibility of immediately returning patients transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention with ST-elevation myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe the safety of immediate retransfer to community hospitals following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a cohort of 246 consecutive patients transferred to a tertiary institution who all underwent primary or rescue PCI, 166 (67%) were immediately retransferred back. The retransfer occurred only if they were haemodynamically stable and had undergone an uncomplicated procedure. In-hospital adverse events were assessed in each referral hospital. Patients had a mean age of 59 years, presented an anterior MI in 39%, and 91% were in Killip class 1. In this cohort, 75% of patients underwent primary PCI and 25% received rescue PCI. A transradial approach was used in 74% of patients. During ambulance transport back to the referral hospital, no adverse events occurred. In-hospital outcomes were favourable, with low death (2.4%), reinfarction (3.6%) and stroke (1.2%) rates. TIMI major bleeding occurred in 1.8% (catheter-related in 0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In this carefully selected population of STEMI patients, immediate retransfer to the referral hospital following primary or rescue PCI is feasible in more than 2/3 of patients and associated with a low risk of major clinical adverse events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".