A comparison of clinical outcomes between Canadian and American patients after nonurgent coronary stenting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice patterns for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) may differ between Canada and the United States. Few data are available comparing PCI outcomes between the two countries in the era of coronary stenting and adjunctive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition. METHODS: In the Enhanced Suppression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Therapy (ESPRIT) trial, 2064 patients were randomly assigned to receive eptifibatide or placebo during nonurgent PCI. The 30-day and one-year rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were compared between Canadian and American patients enrolled in the ESPRIT trial. RESULTS: There were 1531 American patients and 533 Canadian patients enrolled. Americans were older and heavier, and had a higher incidence of cardiac risk factors than Canadians (P<0.05 for all variables). Canadian patients had a lower incidence of death, MI and TVR at 30 days (6.2% versus 10.4%, P=0.004) and at one year (14.8% versus 21.5%, P=0.0006). After adjusting for known baseline differences, enrollment in Canada remained a significant predictor of reduced ischemic complications at 30 days (OR=0.53, c2=9.0, P=0.003). Similar results were observed at one year. Eptifibatide was superior to placebo in both groups of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis is among the first to show Canadian patients to have fewer adverse events than American patients after nonurgent PCI. This effect was independent of known baseline differences between the patients in each country. The relative treatment effect of eptifibatide in Canadian patients paralleled that observed in the main ESPRIT trial and in American patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".