Relationship Between Arterial Access and Outcomes in ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction With a Pharmacoinvasive Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategy: Insights From the STrategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction (STREAM) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The effectiveness of radial access ( RA ) in ST ‐elevation myocardial infarction ( STEMI ) has been predominantly established in primary percutaneous coronary intervention ( pPCI ) with limited exploration of this issue in the early postfibrinolytic patient. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of RA versus femoral ( FA ) access in STEMI undergoing either a pharmacoinvasive ( PI ) strategy or pPCI . Methods and Results Within ST rategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction ( STREAM ), we evaluated the relationship between arterial access site and primary outcome (30‐day composite of death, shock, congestive heart failure, or reinfarction) and major bleeding according to the treatment strategy received. A total of 1820 STEMI patients were included: 895 PI (49.2%; rescue PCI [n=379; 42.3%], scheduled PCI [n=516; 57.7%]) and 925 pPCI (50.8%). Irrespective of treatment strategy, there was comparable utilization of either access site ( FA : PI 53.4% and pPCI 57.6%). FA STEMI patients were younger, had lower presenting systolic blood pressure, lesser Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction risk, and more ∑ ST ‐elevation at baseline. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 8.9% RA versus 15.7% FA patients ( P <0.001). On multivariable analysis, this benefit on the primary composite outcome favoring RA persisted (adjusted odds ratio [ OR ], 0.59; 95% CI , 0.44–0.78; P <0.001) and was evident in both pPCI (adjusted OR , 0.63; 95% CI , 0.43–0.92) and PI cohorts (adjusted OR , 0.57 95% CI , 0.37–0.86; P interaction=0.730). There was no difference in nonintracranial major bleeding with either access group ( RA vs FA , 5.2% vs 6.0%; P =0.489). Conclusions Regardless of the application of a PI or pPCI strategy, RA was associated with improved clinical outcomes, supporting current STEMI evidence in favor of RA in PCI . Clinical Trial Registration URL : https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT 00623623.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".