MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2434079992 · doi:10.1161/jaha.116.003559

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

2016· article· en· W2434079992 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Shavadia, Robert C. Welsh, Anthony Gershlick, Yinggan Zheng, Kurt Huber, Sigrun Halvorsen, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Frans Van de Werf, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial reperfusionReperfusion therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207