MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Activated Clotting Time to Guide Heparin Dosing in Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Treated With IIb/IIIa Inhibitors

2018· article· en· W2982214738 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Guillaume Dillinger, Grégory Ducrocq, Yedid Elbez, Marc Cohen, Christoph Bode, Charles V. Pollack, José Carlos Nicolau, Patrick Henry, Saško Kedev, Stephen D. Wiviott, Marc S. Sabatine, Shamir R. Mehta, Philippe Gabríel Steg

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioPercutaneous coronary interventionActivated clotting timeConfidence intervalAcute coronary syndromeEptifibatideCardiologyInternal medicineHeparinMyocardial infarctionAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background— Monitoring anticoagulation with activated clotting time (ACT) has been proposed to reduce ischemic or bleeding events. However, the value of using ACT to improve outcomes is uncertain. This study sought to determine the relationship between ACT and outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non–ST-segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) treated by unfractionated heparin with GPIs (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors). Methods and Results— From the randomized TAO trial (Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndromes With Otamixaban), we analyzed the value of ACT to predict ischemic and bleeding outcomes in the 3275 patients receiving unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide. Ischemic and safety outcomes were analyzed according to ACT to determine the best threshold. Median peak ACT was 225 s. There was no correlation ( r =−0.02; P =0.24) between the unfractionated heparin dose received and the ACT value before percutaneous coronary intervention. There was no evidence of a nonlinear association between ACT and either ischemic or bleeding events ( P =0.66; P =0.07). No threshold was found to predict ischemic complications. Conversely, increased bleeding was observed with ACT >230 s with an optimal threshold of ACTs ≥250 s (4.53% versus 6.17%; odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–2.06; P =0.028). This optimal threshold varied according to access site: ≥250 s (6.86% versus 10.18%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.00–2.45; P =0.047) by femoral approach and ≥290 s (2.86% versus 5.43%; odds ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–4.44; P =0.027) by radial approach. Conclusions— In the TAO trial, peak procedural ACT ≥250 s was associated with increased bleeding risk in non–ST-segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome patients treated with unfractionated heparin plus GPIs. This threshold was increased to 290 s when performing radial approach. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01076764.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207