Primary Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty With and Without Eptifibatide in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention, if performed promptly, is the preferred strategy to restore flow to the infarct-related artery in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We sought to determine whether eptifibatide, a platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, given before catheterization would improve clinical outcomes in patients referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned a total of 400 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention to treatment initiated before cardiac catheterization, with either heparin plus eptifibatide (201 patients) or heparin alone (199 patients), in addition to oral aspirin (160 mg) and high-dose clopidogrel (600 mg). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction, or recurrent severe ischemia during the first 30 days after randomization. At 30 days, the primary end point was reached by 13 patients (6.47%) assigned to heparin plus eptifibatide and by 11 patients (5.53%) assigned to heparin alone (relative risk, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.52 to 2.70; P=0.69). The rates of major or minor bleeding were higher in patients assigned to heparin plus eptifibatide than that in patients assigned to heparin alone (22.4% versus 14.6%; relative risk, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.83; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients pretreated with high-dose clopidogrel who were referred for primary PCI, treatment with heparin plus eptifibatide, when compared with heparin alone, did not improve clinical outcomes and was associated with more bleeding complications.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".