MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982075987 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0449

P1694Sex is not an independent predictor of ischemic outcomes or bleeding in NSTEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Insights from the TAO trial

2019· article· en· W2982075987 on OpenAlexaff
J G Dillinger, Grégory Ducrocq, Yedid Elbez, Marc Cohen, Christoph Bode, CV Pollack, Birutė Petrauskienė, P. Henry, Maria Dorobanţu, William J. French, Jean-Michel Juliard, Stephen D. Wiviott, Marc S. Sabatine, Shamir Mehta, Philippe Gabríel Steg

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineTIMIPercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionCardiologyAcute coronary syndromeRandomized controlled trialEptifibatideRandomizationHazard ratioDiabetes mellitusConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background There is uncertainty regarding whether female sex is an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Purpose We sought to describe and compare ischemic and bleeding outcomes between men and women with Non–ST-segment–Elevation (NSTE) ACS enrolled in the large Treatment of Acute coronary syndromes with Otamixaban (TAO) trial in which antithrombotic treatment was standardized and a systematic invasive approach was performed. Methods The TAO trial randomized moderate to high-risk NSTE-ACS patients with diagnostic coronary angiography planned in the first 72 hours to heparin plus eptifibatide versus otamixaban. This post-hoc analysis describes ischemic (all-cause death, new myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis within 180 days of randomization) and bleeding outcomes (TIMI major and minor bleeding within 30 days of randomization) according to sex. Results Of 13,229 patients with NSTE-ACS randomized in 55 countries, 3,980 (30.1%) were female and 9,249 (69.9%) were male. Mean age was 64.8±11.0 and 60.7±11.1 years, respectively. The prevalence of diabetes (34.0% vs. 25.8%), hypertension (80.8% vs. 67.0%), and hypercholesterolemia (55.9% vs. 52.2%) was higher among women compared with men but current smoking (21.5% vs. 38.7%) and history of previous MI were more frequent in males (15.5% vs. 20.7%). Females experienced a higher incidence of both ischemic outcomes (10.2% vs. 9.1%; OR=1.15; 95% CI, 1.01–1.30; p=0.034) and bleeding events (4.1% vs. 3.4%; OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.02–1.49; p=0.029). Bleeding risk and CV death were particularly increased in women younger than 50 years, compared to males of the same age, at 5.5% vs. 1.4% (OR=4.00; 95% CI, 2.13–7.69; p=0.034) and 1.7% vs. 0.5% (OR=4.35; 95% CI, 1.02–20.00; p=0.02), respectively. No difference in either outcome was found between women and men between 50 and 80 years old. Above 80 years, women experienced a lower rate of bleeding (3.9% vs. 7.8%; OR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.23–0.88; p=0.024) but a similar rate of in ischemic events (16.0% vs. 17.2%; OR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.63–1.33; p=0.67). After adjustment for age, body weight, diabetes mellitus, prior PCI, serum creatinine, presenting systolic blood pressure, elevated biomarker at presentation, heart failure, the risk of ischemic (OR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.89–1.18; p=0.71) and bleeding events (OR=1.05; 95% CI, 0.85–1.33; p=0.65) were similar between men and women. Conclusions In this large international randomized trial of NSTE-ACS with standardized invasive management, women (particularly those younger than 50 years) experienced higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events than men, but the difference was not sustained after adjustment. In this population, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in NSTE-ACS. The type of ACS (NSTE-ACS) and routine invasive management in women and men may explain this absence of difference. Acknowledgement/Funding The TAO trial was sponsored and funded by SANOFI. The present analysis was supported by the RHU iVASC grant “#ANR-16-RHUS-00010”

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→