MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 82: Comparison of Outcomes by Type of Treatment for Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) who presented to Hospitals without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Facilities in Quebec, Canada

2013· article· en· W2395386243 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurie Lambert, Yongling Xiao, Simon Kouz, Stéphane Rinfret, Eli Segal, Dave Ross, Philippe L. L’Allier, Alain Vanasse, Sébastien Maire, Jim Nasmith, Peter Bogaty

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversité de SherbrookeMontreal Heart InstituteInstitut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services SociauxSanté MontérégieJewish General HospitalCegep regional de LanaudiereCégep de LévisInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventional PCIMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionInterquartile rangeFibrinolysisMyocardial infarctionThrombolysisHazard ratioCardiologyInternal medicineEmergency medicineFibrinolytic therapySurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that STEMI patients who present to non-PCI centers generally be treated with fibrinolysis instead of untimely transfer for primary PCI (i.e., first medical contact [FMC] to device ≥120 min). Little real-world evidence exists for this recommendation since transfer patients are often excluded from clinical registries. A provincial field evaluation of the whole system of STEMI care in Quebec (Canada) provided the opportunity to compare the effectiveness of different treatment modalities, including, importantly, inter-hospital transfer for primary PCI. METHODS: All STEMI patients who presented to non-PCI hospitals during two 6-month periods in 2006-7 and 2008-9 were identified (N=2623) and followed up to one year. Detailed information on patient risk factors and treatment delays was extracted from medical charts. We used a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model with time-dependent treatment modelling to assess the hazard ratio of death for 5 treatment modalities: on-site fibrinolysis without later transfer to a PCI center; on-site fibrinolysis with subsequent transfer; timely transfer for primary PCI; untimely transfer for primary PCI; no reperfusion therapy. RESULTS: Median FMC-to-device delay for transfer primary PCI patients was 131 min (interquartile range, IQR: 107-166) and only 29% had timely treatment. Median door-to-needle delay was 30 min (IQR: 20-48) with 70% being transferred, after fibrinolysis, to a PCI center (81% subsequently received PCI). Median time to transfer after fibrinolysis was 17.8 hours (IQR: 3.3-77.3). Compared with untimely transfer for primary PCI, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.15-0.56) for timely primary PCI transfer, 0.52 (95% CI: 0.29-0.95) for fibrinolysis with subsequent transfer, 1.18 (95% CI: 0.75-1.84) for fibrinolysis alone and 1.74 (95% CI: 1.31-2.31) for no reperfusion therapy. CONCLUSION: Timely treatment delay is associated with improved STEMI survival. These results also provide real-world evidence to support the guideline recommendation to prioritize on-site treatment with fibrinolysis (with consideration of subsequent transfer to a PCI center) over untimely transfer for primary PCI. Transfer to a PCI center after fibrinolysis mostly occurred the following day, suggesting that transfer need not necessarily be immediate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207