Abstract 14586: Variability in Indicated Left Ventricular Function Reassessment After Mi: The Acute Myocardial Infarction Quality Assurance (AMIQA) Canada Multicenter Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Persistently reduced LVEF after acute MI predicts adverse prognosis and directs use of evidence-based treatments to prevent sudden death (SCD) and/or progressive heart failure. We conducted a multicentre, prospective, observational study to assess adherence with guideline recommendations to repeat imaging assessment post-MI in those with initially depressed LVEF. Methods: We enrolled 501 patients with type 1 acute MI and LVEF ≤45% during the index hospitalization, from 14 Canadian sites. Outcomes were the proportion having a repeat LVEF assessment by 6 months and the proportion with an actionable reduced LVEF in follow-up: <35%, prompting referral for ICD therapy; <40%, prompting consideration of additional heart failure therapy; or 36% to 50%, prompting referral for participation in SCD risk reduction research Results: Mean age was 63.3 ± 13.0, and 113 (22.6%) were female. Overall, 370 (73.4%) presented with STEMI, and 454 (91.6%) had one or more in-hospital revascularization procedures. The mean baseline LVEF was 36.9% ± 6.7%. Over a median follow-up of 198 days, 18 (3.6%) patients died and 27 (5.3%) were lost to follow-up. Of 456 remaining patients, 303 (66.5%) had LVEF reassessment and significant variation was observed across sites (range 46.7-90.0%; p=0.035). Patients from community vs academic hospitals were more likely to undergo LVEF reassessment (73.6% vs. 63.2%, p=0.034), as were those with worse LVEF at baseline ( Figure, panel A ). In those with follow-up LVEF (n=302), 61.6% had an actionable persistent LVEF reduction: 13.9% had LVEF <35%, 28.8% had LVEF <40%, and 47.7% had LVEF between 36 and 50%, with significant variation based on initial LVEF ( Figure, Panel B ). Conclusions: One in three patients with at least mild LVEF reduction after acute MI did not undergo indicated LVEF reassessment within 6 months. In those with follow-up imaging, clinically actionable persistent LVEF reduction was identified in over one quarter of patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".