Timing of Coronary Angiography After Successful Fibrinolytic Therapy in ST-Segment Elevated Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare outcomes of patients received successful fibrinolytic treatment (FT) for ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) and performed coronary angiography (CAG) within 24 - 72 h or after 72 h. METHODS: Between March 2013 and November 2014, 76 STEMI patients received successful FT and performed CAG > 24 h were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the time-interval from FT admission to CAG performing (Group-1, 24 - 72 h (n = 29), Group-2, > 72 h (n = 47)). The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. RESULTS: The mean age of patients were 56 ± 11.4 years old (27.6% female). CAG was performed within mean 2.17 ± 0.38 days in the Group-1 and 2.9 ± 11.5 days in the Group 2 (P < 0.001). At short-term follow-up (6 months), MACE rate was higher in Group-2 (21.3%) than Group-1(13.8%), but it was not statistically significant (P = 0.661). The rate of MACE was 37.9% in Group-1 and 38.3% in Group-2 (P = 0.974) in the long-term follow-up (median: 57 months). Overall cardiac mortality rate was 7.9%, the re-infarction rate was 19.7% and heart failure was 17.1% in long-term follow-up, and there were no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Present study has shown that performance of CAG after 24 h of successful FT, within 24 - 74 h or > 72 h, did not shown any difference in term of MACE both in short and long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".