The prognostic impact of revascularization strategy in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: Insights from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel is associated with improved outcomes. A large majority of these patients have multivessel disease (MVD). Whether or not PCI of non-culprit disease in the acute setting improves outcomes continues to be debated. We evaluated the prognostic impact of revascularization strategy for patients presenting with AMI and CS. METHODS: We compared culprit vessel intervention (CVI) versus multivessel intervention in 649 patients with AMI, CS, and MVD enrolled in the British Columbia Cardiac Registry. We evaluated mortality at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: CVI was associated with lower mortality at 30 days (23.7% vs. 34.5%, P = 0.004) and 1 year (32.6% vs. 44.3%, P = 0.003). CVI was an independent predictor for survival at 30 days (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45-0.88, P = 0.009) and 1 year (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54-0.96, P = 0.027). These findings were confirmed in propensity-matched cohorts. Subgroup analyses indicated that CVI was associated with lower mortality in patients aged <80 years; non-diabetics; and those presenting with ST-elevation MI. When analyzing non-culprit anatomy, PCI of non-culprit LAD disease was associated with higher 1-year mortality (HR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.13-2.01, P = 0.006), primarily with non-culprit proximal LAD disease (HR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.20-2.76, P = 0.005). However, PCI of non-culprit non-proximal LAD, LCx, and RCA disease was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI and CS, a strategy of CVI appears to be associated with lower mortality. These findings are consistent with recently published randomized-controlled trial data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".