Outcomes and Prognostic Impact of Prophylactic Oral Anticoagulation in Anterior ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The contemporary role of prophylactic anticoagulation following extensive anterior wall ST ‐segment myocardial infarction ( STEMI ) is unclear. Methods and Results We evaluated anterior STEMI patients with left ventricle dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) (“high risk”), categorized by prophylactic warfarin use, within a regional STEMI . Patients with pre‐existing atrial fibrillation were excluded. The primary outcome was an adjusted (for Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score) 1‐year composite of recurrent ischemia, stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, or all‐cause death. Of the 2032 STEMI admissions, 436 (21.5%) were high risk. After excluding 19 (4.4%) patients with definite left ventricle thrombus and 21 (4.8%) in‐hospital deaths (2 had left ventricle thrombus), prophylactic warfarin was utilized in 236/398 (59.3%) high‐risk survivors. Prescriptions were comparable across sex, but recipients were on average younger (58.5 years versus 64.0 years, P <0.001) and lower risk (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk: 163 versus 181, P <0.001). No association on the adjusted ischemic composite (23.3% versus 25.3%, odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.60–1.55) or thromboembolic events (2.1% versus 1.2%, odds ratio 1.99, 95% CI 0.38–10.51) was observed, but reduced 1‐year all‐cause mortality was noted (2.5% versus 8.6%, odds ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.11–0.81); numerically higher major bleeding was observed at 1 year (2.5% versus 1.2%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% CI 0.43–10.96). Conclusions A high utilization of prophylactic warfarin occurs in anterior STEMI patients with left ventricle dysfunction, yet appears to provide no additional benefit on the ischemic composite. The association with lower all‐cause mortality, but higher bleeding, calls for an improved understanding of its role in high‐risk STEMI .
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".