The impact of pre-procedure heart rate on adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from a 2-year follow-up of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The prognostic impact of pre-procedure heart rate (PHR) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not yet been fully investigated. This post-hoc analysis sought to assess the impact of PHR on medium-term outcomes among patients having PCI, who were enrolled in the "all-comers" GLOBAL LEADERS trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint (composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction [MI]) and key secondary safety endpoint (bleeding according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] type 3 or 5) were assessed at 2 years. PHR was available in 15,855 patients, and when evaluated as a continuous variable (5 bpm increase) and following adjustment using multivariate Cox regression, it significantly correlated with the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.09, p < 0.001). Using dichotomous cut-off criteria, a PHR>67 bpm was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.38, 95%CI 1.13-1.69, p = 0.002) and more frequent new Q-wave MI (HR 1.41, 95%CI 1.02-1.93, p = 0.037). No significant association was found between PHR and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99-1.09, p = 0.099). There was no interaction with the primary (p-inter = 0.236) or secondary endpoint (p-inter = 0.154) when high and low PHR was analyzed according to different antiplatelet strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated PHR was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality at 2 years following PCI in the "all-comer" GLOBAL LEADERS trial. The prognostic value of increased PHR on outcomes was not affected by the different antiplatelet strategies in this trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".