How do cardiologists select patients for dual antiplatelet therapy continuation beyond 1 year after a myocardial infarction? Insights from the EYESHOT Post‐MI Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines suggest to consider dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) continuation for longer than 12 months in selected patients with myocardial infarction (MI). HYPOTHESIS: We sought to assess the criteria used by cardiologists in daily practice to select patients with a history of MI eligible for DAPT continuation beyond 1 year. METHODS: We analyzed data from the EYESHOT Post-MI, a prospective, observational, nationwide study aimed to evaluate the management of patients presenting to cardiologists 1 to 3 years from the last MI event. RESULTS: Out of the 1633 post-MI patients enrolled in the study between March and December 2017, 557 (34.1%) were on DAPT at the time of enrolment, and 450 (27.6%) were prescribed DAPT after cardiologist assessment. At multivariate analyses, a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with multiple stents and the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) resulted as independent predictors of DAPT continuation, while atrial fibrillation was the only independent predictor of DAPT interruption for patients both at the second and the third year from MI at enrolment and the time of discharge/end of the visit. CONCLUSIONS: Risk scores recommended by current guidelines for guiding decisions on DAPT duration are underused and misused in clinical practice. A PCI with multiple stents and a history of PAD resulted as the clinical variables more frequently associated with DAPT continuation beyond 1 year from the index MI.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it