MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 079: Health-related Quality of Life With Routine Invasive versus Ischemia-guided Strategies for the Elderly With Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI)- Insights From PREMIER/TRIUMPH

2017· article· en· W2625952631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krishna Patel, Suzanne V. Arnold, Mohammed Qintar, Philip G. Jones, Karen P. Alexander, John A. Spertus

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyMyocardial infarctionAnginaUnstable anginaInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Cardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In elderly patients presenting with a NSTEMI, a routine invasive strategy reduces cardiovascular events as compared with an ischemia guided approach. However, the association of invasive management on health status outcomes is unknown. Methods: Among patients admitted with NSTEMI from 2 multicenter US AMI registries (TRIUMPH and PREMIER), health status was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6 and 12 months after AMI using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), a CAD-specific health status measure (scores range 0-100, higher scores=better QoL; ~5-points is minimally clinically relevant difference). Invasive management was defined as coronary angiography within 72 hours of admission without a preceding stress test. Propensity-adjusted linear mixed effect models were used to compare health status between treatment strategies over the year after MI. Interactions of age (divided into <65, 65-74, 75-84, ≥85 years) with treatment and with time were tested. Results: Among 3559 patients with NSTEMI, 2455 (69.0%) were treated with a routine invasive strategy. This was more common in younger patients, with 72.4% (1610/ 2223) of patients <65 years, 66.6% (476/715) of those 65-74 years, 63.1% (316/501) of those 75-84 years, and 44.2% (53/120) of those ≥ 85 years treated with a routine invasive strategy (p<0.001). In propensity-adjusted analyses (Table), invasive strategy was associated with a clinically small but statistically significant benefit on SAQ physical limitation, angina frequency, and summary scores over the year following AMI; benefits that were greatest early on. Although patients aged ≥ 85 years had slightly worse health status when treated with an invasive strategy, there was no significant interaction between age and treatment strategy for any of the health status outcomes (p≥ 0.15 for all). Conclusions: In the setting of a NSTEMI, a routine invasive strategy is associated with small but significant health status benefits. These effects were most notable early during follow-up and did not significantly differ by age. While there was no significant interaction of treatment with age, the oldest old group appeared to derive slightly less health status benefit from a routine invasive strategy—results that will need to be confirmed in a larger study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207