Outcomes of Women and Men With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With and Without Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women hospitalized with a non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have worse clinical outcomes compared with men. An early invasive strategy with prompt coronary revascularization may mitigate sex differences in outcomes. However, few contemporary studies have evaluated whether clinical outcomes differ between women and men presenting with ACS treated with an early invasive strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A population-based cohort of hospitalized ACS patients who received prompt cardiac catheterization from 2008 to 2011 in Ontario, Canada and followed for up to 2 years was studied. Clinical outcomes were compared between men and women, stratified by the use of coronary revascularization. Inverse probability weighting using the propensity score accounted for measured differences in baseline characteristics between men and women. Among the 23 473 ACS patients who received cardiac catheterization during an index hospitalization, 66.1% of men and 51.8% of women received coronary revascularization during the same hospitalization. In the propensity-weighted cohort of patients who received coronary revascularization, the 1-year rate of death or recurrent ACS was 10.6% for men (referent) compared with 13.1% for women (hazard ratio 1.24; 95% CI 1.16-1.33). In contrast, outcomes for patients who did not receive coronary revascularization did not differ significantly between women and men at 1 year (17.8% versus 16.9%; hazard ratio 1.06; 95% CI 0.99-1.14) or at longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: An increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes was observed for women with ACS undergoing an early invasive strategy and coronary revascularization compared with men.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".