Impact of on-site cardiac interventional facilities on management and outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of on-site cardiac interventional facilities on the management and outcome of patients with versus those without ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the Canadian-American Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) IIb population. METHODS: Data from 4605 patients were analyzed in relation to the admitting hospital's capability to perform coronary procedures (noninvasive, angiography-capable and interventional hospitals). Differences in medication use, revascularization rate and patient outcome were determined. RESULTS: Whereas medication use during hospitalization and at discharge differed between non-ST elevation ACS patients treated in the three groups, these were generally more comparable among ST elevation ACS patients. In both ST segment cohorts, patients treated in interventional hospitals underwent coronary procedures more often (angiography rate greater than 70% versus 40% for noninvasive hospitals) and sooner (median two to three days versus four days in noninvasive hospitals) than those treated in other hospitals. Recurrent ischemia was significantly less common in non-ST elevation ACS patients treated in interventional hospitals (32% versus 36% in angiography-capable and 40% in noninvasive hospitals, P<0.001) and tended to be less common among ST elevation ACS patients treated in interventional hospitals. Patients treated in interventional hospitals tended to have lower mortality in the non-ST elevation ACS cohort but significantly fewer died in the ST elevation ACS during hospitalization and at 30 days, six months and one year (8.8% versus 11% in angiography-capable and 15% in noninvasive hospitals, P=0.015). These differences in mortality persisted after adjustment for key baseline covariates. Separate analysis of Canadian and American patients revealed similar mortality patterns, as to the total population, in both ST segment cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of an on-site cardiac interventional facility favourably affected the management and outcome of ACS patients in both non-ST and ST elevation cohorts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".