Rationale and design of the RIGHT trial: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of anticoagulation prolongation versus no anticoagulation after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, whether anticoagulation should be continued after pPCI has not been well investigated. METHODS/DESIGN: The RIGHT trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in STEMI patients treated with pPCI evaluating the prolongation of anticoagulation after the procedure. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either prolonged anticoagulant or matching placebo (no anticoagulation) for at least 48 hours after the procedure. When randomized to anticoagulation prolongation, the patient is assigned to intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous enoxaparin or intravenous bivalirudin (same drug and same regimen at each center). The primary efficacy endpoint is the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, stent thrombosis (definite) or urgent revascularization (any vessel) at 30 days. The primary safety endpoint is major bleeding (BARC 3-5) at 30 days. Based on a superiority design and assuming a 35% relative risk reduction (from 7% to 4.5%), 2856 patients will be enrolled, accounting for a 5% drop-out rate (α = 0.05 and power = 80%). CONCLUSION: The RIGHT trial tests the hypothesis that post-procedural anticoagulation is superior to no anticoagulation in reducing ischemic events in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".