MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981588251 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz746.0053

5194Impact of established cardiovascular disease on outcomes in the Global Leaders trial

2019· article· en· W2981588251 on OpenAlexaff
Scot Garg, Ply Chichareon, Rodrigo Modolo, Mariusz Tomaniak, Salvatore Curello, Adam Młodziankowski, Christian W. Hamm, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Peter Jüni, Pascal Vranckx, Marco Valgimigli, Stephan Windecker, Yoshinobu Onuma, Patrick W. Serruys

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTicagrelorPercutaneous coronary interventionInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionAspirinConventional PCIClinical endpointStroke (engine)CardiologyCoronary artery diseaseRevascularizationClopidogrelStentCohortRandomized controlled trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives To investigate the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy following one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) who were enrolled in the Global Leaders Trial. Background The impact of prolonged monotherapy with P2Y12 inhibitors after PCI in patients with CVD is undetermined. Methods GLOBAL LEADERS was a randomized, superiority, all-comers trial comparing one-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy (experimental treatment) with standard 12-month DAPT followed by 12-month aspirin monotherapy (reference treatment) in patients treated with a biolimus A9-eluting stent. The cohort was stratified according to those with- and without established CVD, defined as a history of ≥1 prior myocardial infarction (MI), PCI, coronary artery bypass operation, stroke or peripheral vascular disease. The degree of CVD was defined according to the number of vascular territories effected (1, 2, ≥3). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave MI at 2-years. Secondary endpoints were the patient orientated composite endpoint (POCE) of death, stroke, MI and any revascularization; definite stent thrombosis and net adverse cardiovascular events a composite of POCE and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding. Results Amongst the 15,761 patients included in this cohort were 6693 patients (42.5%) with- and 9068 patients without established CVD. Patients with CVD were older, and had significantly higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolaemia (P<0.01). The incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in patients with established CVD (5.1% vs. 3.3%, P<0.001) as were all secondary endpoints and their individual components. There was a trend for a reduction in the primary endpoint in patients with established CVD receiving the experimental treatment (4.6% vs. 5.6%, HR0.82 [0.66–1.02], p=0.07), which was not seen in those without prior CVD (3.2% vs. 3.3%, HR 0.95 [0.76–1.19, p=0.66; p(interaction)=0.37). Compared with patients without CVD the incidence of the primary and second endpoints and all their individual components, other than BARC 3/5 bleeding, rose significantly with an increasing degree of CVD. In an unadjusted model, compared with patients without CVD, the hazard ratio for the primary endpoint rose from 1.5 (1.21–1.81) to 3.0 (2.32–4.00) in patients with one and three territories of CVD, respectively. Similar rises were seen in models adjusted by age (1.3 [1.01–1.60] to 2.56 [1.94–3.38]) and age, left ventricular ejection fraction, clinical presentation and anti-platelet strategy (1.4 [1.10–1.68] to 2.26 [1.69–3.02]). Conclusions PCI outcomes are poorer in patients with increasing degrees of CVD compared to those without. Prolonged monotherapy with ticagrelor does not mitigate this risk suggesting a greater need to focus on modifiable risk factors

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases→French-language works237,207→