MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981583992 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0145

2387Recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality in relation to antiplatelet therapy in patients with myocardial infarction without obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA)

2019· article· en· W2981583992 on OpenAlexaff
Matthias Bossard, Salim Yusuf, Jérémie Tanguay, David P. Faxon, William E. Boden, Philippe Gabríel Steg, C. B. Granger, Adnan Kastrati, Andrzej Budaj, Giuseppe Di Pasquale, Vicent Valentín, Rafael Díaz, Campbell Joyner, P. Gao, Shamir R. Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of TorontoPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClopidogrelMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseRegimenCardiologyHazard ratioStroke (engine)SurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Approximately 10% of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA). The role of antiplatelet therapy and outcomes in this group remain unclear. We assessed prognosis and the effect of an intensified clopidogrel regimen in MINOCA patients. Methods We analyzed data from the CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial, which randomized 25,086 patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) referred for early intervention to receive either double-dose (600mg day 1; 150mg days 2–7; then 75mg daily) or standard-dose (300mg day 1; then 75mg daily) clopidogrel. We evaluated clinical outcomes at 30-days in patients with versus without obstructive CAD and in relation to standard versus double-dose clopidogrel. Results Overall, 23,783 MI patients were included, of which 1,599 (6.7%) had MINOCA. MINOCA patients were younger, more frequently presented with non-ST-segment elevation MI and had fewer comorbidities. Rates of all-cause mortality (0.7% versus 2.4%, p=0.0046), cardiovascular mortality (0.6 versus 2.2%, p=0.0056), repeat MI (0.5% versus 2.3%, p=0.0009) and major bleedings (0.7% versus 2.5%, p=0.0001) were significantly lower among patients with MINOCA versus those with obstructive CAD. Compared with the standard-dose clopidogrel regimen, the double-dose regimen appeared to increase the risk of cardiovascular death, MI or stroke in MINOCA patients (0.8% versus 2.1%, hazard ratio (HR) 2.74, P=0.033). There was no difference in those with obstructive CAD (4.7% versus 4.4%, HR 0.93, P=0.226; P-for-interaction=0.023) (see Figure 1A). Major bleeding did not occur more frequently in MINOCA patients with double- versus standard-dose clopidogrel regimen (0.7% versus 0.6%, (HR 1.16 (95% CI 0.35–3.80), p=0.805), but their rate was higher In MI patients with obstructive CAD (2.7% versus 2.2% (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.06–1.49), p=0.008) (Figure 1B). Figure 1A & B Conclusions Compared to MI patients with obstructive CAD, patients presenting with MINOCA represent a distinct cohort, which is generally younger, has a higher NSTEMI prevalence and fewer comorbidities. Their risk for adverse events, especially repeat MI, stroke, death, and bleeding, is low (<1%) at 30 days. Applying an intensified clopidogrel regimen in MINOCA patients appears to be related to a higher risk for CV death, MI and stroke. Accordingly, more potent antiplatelet regimens might be harmful among MINOCA patients and should not be administered routinely. Nevertheless, there is a need for more prospective studies evaluating the role of dual antiplatelet therapies in MINOCA patients. Acknowledgement/Funding The CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial was sponsored by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207