Impact of access to hospitals with catheterization facilities in the second Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events (Gulf RACE-2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It is currently unclear whether acute coronary syndrome patients who access hospitals with catheterization facilities, with or without an on-site percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), have better outcomes in real-life clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: This 9-month prospective study was carried out in six Arabian Gulf countries. Patients in hospitals with catheterization facilities [20/65 hospitals; 3615/6847 (52.8%) patients] were more likely to show evidence of cardiovascular risk factors (P<0.001) and more likely to undergo revascularization procedures that were mostly performed (≥80%) in low-risk and intermediate-risk patients. Patients in these centres experienced significantly higher rates of medical therapies and shorter door-to-needle times [median (IQR): 33 (40) vs. 43.5 (43) min, P<0.001]; 14.1% had primary PCI. They also had less in-hospital recurrent ischaemia, recurrent myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and stroke, but more cardiogenic shock and major bleeding, and they had similar adjusted mortality rates in-hospital [odds ratio (OR): 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.27] and at 30-day (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91-1.36) and 1-year (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.89-1.27) follow-ups. CONCLUSION: Access to hospitals with catheterization facilities, with or without on-site PCI, was associated with a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction and recurrent ischaemia, but not mortality. Further efforts are required to target revascularization procedures for higher risk patients as well as to widely implement primary PCI programmes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".