Correlations between epicardial flow, microvascular reperfusion, infarct size and clinical outcomes in patients with anterior versus non-anterior myocardial infarction treated with primary or rescue angioplasty: analysis from the EMERALD trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We compared epicardial and microvascular reperfusion, infarct size, and clinical outcomes after primary and rescue PCI with and without GuardWire distal protection in patients with LAD vs. non-LAD acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In the general AMI population undergoing primary PCI, the use of GuardWire did not yield higher reperfusion success, reduced infarct size, or enhanced event-free survival. Whether GuardWire is beneficial in patients with AMI in certain territories of the coronary circulation is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the EMERALD trial, 501 patients with AMI were randomised to PCI with vs. without distal protection. The outcomes were analysed as a function of culprit vessel (LAD vs. non-LAD) and the use of GuardWire. Patients with LAD vs. non-LAD infarcts had significantly (P< or =0.0001) lower rates of final TIMI flow grade 3 (85.2% vs. 94.4%), myocardial blush grade 3 (40.1% vs. 67.6%), and complete ST-segment resolution (35.1% vs. 79.6%). Patients with LAD infarcts also had larger infarct size (25.8+/-21.8% vs. 11.3_13.7%, p<0.0001) and a trend towards higher rates of 6-month mortality (5.5% vs. 2.1%, p=0.09) and new-onset severe heart failure (3.5% vs. 1.1%, p=0.08). Rates of reperfusion were not related to GuardWire use in patients with LAD infarcts. In patients with non-LAD infarcts, the use of GuardWire was associated with a trend towards better epicardial and microvascular reperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial infarction in the territory of the LAD is associated with worse epicardial and microvascular reperfusion and worse 6-month clinical outcomes. Use of the GuardWire showed a trend towards better epicardial and microvascular flow in patients with a non-LAD infarct-related artery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".