MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictors of Initial Revascularization Versus Medical Therapy Alone in Patients With Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing an Invasive Strategy

2016· article· en· W2471902567 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Harindra C. Wijeysundera, Mandeep S. Sidhu, Maria C. Bennell, Feng Qiu, Dennis T. Ko, Merril L. Knudtson, Jack V. Tu, William E. Boden

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsCalgary General HospitalFoothills Medical CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAcute coronary syndromeMedicineRevascularizationElevation (ballistics)CardiologyInternal medicineMedical therapyST elevationST segmentMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although an invasive strategy is a class I clinical practice guideline for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes, there is wide variation in the proportion of patients who undergo revascularization despite early angiography. We sought to identify the predictors of early revascularization versus medical therapy alone in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing an invasive strategy and to assess their clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed revascularization status by percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting within 7 days of the index angiogram in all patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome who underwent an invasive strategy in Ontario, Canada, from October 1, 2008, to October 31, 2013, with follow-up through December 31, 2014. The primary outcome was mortality. Multivariable hierarchical logistic models identified predictors of revascularization, and multivariable Cox models with treatment strategy as a 3-level time-varying covariate assessed the relationship between revascularization status and clinical outcomes. We identified 50 302 patients of whom 34 288 (68.2%) underwent revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention: 28 011 and coronary artery bypass grafting: 6277). There was a 2-fold variation in revascularization rates across hospitals. A higher risk presentation significantly predicted revascularization (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.35), as did having the angiogram by an interventional cardiologist (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Revascularized patients with either percutaneous coronary intervention (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.69) or coronary artery bypass grafting (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.60) had improved survival compared with medically treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome who underwent an early invasive approach received revascularization, there was wide variation. Revascularization was associated with significantly improved survival.

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)0.001
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207