Long‐term outcome following remote ischemic postconditioning during percutaneous coronary interventions—the <scp>RIP‐PCI</scp> trial long‐term follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical value of ischemic conditioning during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and mode of administration is controversial. Our aim was to assess the long-term effect of remote ischemic postconditioning among patients undergoing PCI. We randomized 360 patients undergoing PCI who presented with a negative troponin T at baseline into 3 groups: 2 groups received remote ischemic postconditioning (with ischemia applied to the arm in 1 group and to the thigh in the other group), and the third group acted as a control group. Remote ischemic postconditioning was applied during PCI immediately following stent deployment, by 3, 5-minute cycles of blood pressure cuff inflation to >200 mm Hg on the arm or thigh (20 mm Hg to the arm in the control), with 5-minute breaks between each cycle. There were no differences in baseline characteristics among the 3 groups. Periprocedural myocardial injury occurred in 33% (P = 0.64). After 1 year, there was no difference between groups in death (P = 0.91), myocardial infarction (P = 0.78), or repeat revascularization (P = 0.86). During 3 years of follow-up, there was no difference in death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization among the groups (P = 0.45). Remote ischemic postconditioning during PCI did not affect long-term cardiovascular outcome. A similar effect was obtained when remote ischemia was induced to the upper or lower limb. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00970827.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".