MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Timing of Intervention in Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes

2018· letter· en· W2979499161 on OpenAlexaff
Sanjit S. Jolly, Shamir R. Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationAcute coronary syndromeMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary interventionFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What Is the VERDICT?Article, see p 2741 U nlike in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, where the culprit coronary artery is occluded, leading to transmural ischemia, patients presenting with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) usually have a patent culprit vessel with subendocardial ischemia.NSTE-ACS and ST segment elevation myocardial infarction are a continuum, and NSTE-ACS can progress to ST segment elevation myocardial infarction or complete vessel occlusion if left untreated.It is well established that an invasive approach compared with a conservative approach is beneficial in patients with NSTE-ACS. 1 What is less certain is whether early/urgent coronary angiography and intervention are beneficial in NSTE-ACS.The topic of timing of angiography in NSTE-ACS has been previously studied in randomized trials.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The largest, the TIMACS trial (Timing of Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes) (N=3031), compared early angiography and intervention in ≤24 hours versus delayed angiography >36 hours and found no difference in the primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 6 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68-1.06).3 However, there was a 28% reduction in the secondary outcome of death, MI, or refractory ischemia (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.89).Furthermore, there was a sizeable benefit for the primary outcome with early angiography and intervention in those patients at highest risk (GRACE risk score >140; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.89;P=0.005; P for interac-tion=0.0097).In this issue of Circulation, Kofoed and colleagues 9 performed a randomized trial (N=2147) in patients with NSTE-ACS comparing early angiography (in ≤ 12 hours) to standard of care (angiography 48-72 hours) with a primary outcome of all-cause death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, hospital admission for refractory myocardial ischemia, or hospital admission for heart failure.The median time of angiography was 4.3 hours in the early group and 61.6 hours in the standard-of-care group.Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in ≈50% of patients and coronary bypass surgery in 12%.About a third of patients had no significant coronary stenosis.There was no difference in primary outcome (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78-1.08)at a median of 4.3 years.There was a significant reduction in nonfatal MI (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96)over follow-up that was not evident early (in ≤15 days).There were no reductions individually in the outcomes of death, refractory angina, or heart failure.In the high-risk subgroup (GRACE risk score >140), there was a benefit of early angiography for the primary outcome (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-1.00).These findings are consistent with the TIMACS trial, particularly the benefit in the high-risk subgroup (Figure ). 3 There is a clear biological rationale that those at high-

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0190.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→