MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3106666741 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1198

Early coronary angiography in acute ischemic heart failure is associated with improved survival and lower rates of heart failure hospitalization

2020· article· en· W3106666741 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leah Kosyakovsky, X Wang, Peter C. Austin, Husam Abdel‐Qadir, Patrick R. Lawler, Ruth Croxford, Michael E. Farkouh, Shaun G. Goodman, John A. Spertus, Heather J. Ross, D.S Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAngiographyCardiologyMyocardial infarctionAnginaHeart failureRevascularizationKillip classTIMIUnstable anginaTroponinPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background While coronary ischemia plays a major role in the pathogenesis and prognosis of heart failure (HF), the indications for coronary angiography in acute HF have not been established. Purpose To identify the clinical predictors of performing early coronary angiography in acute ischemic HF and determine the association of angiography with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and HF readmissions. Methods We identified all acute HF patients who presented to any of 70 emergency departments in Ontario, Canada and determined whether they underwent early coronary angiography (defined as angiography performed within 14 days of hospital presentation) using procedural data contained in the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) database (April 2010 to March 2013). We selected patients for detailed chart review using stratified random sampling, including only those with acute ischemic HF, which we defined inclusively as those who had at least ONE of the following: previous myocardial infarction (MI), troponin elevation, or active angina on presentation. We excluded patients for whom angiography on the index admission might reasonably have been withheld, including those with recent pre-admission angiography or revascularization procedures, palliative patients, and those with contraindications to invasive angiography such as anaphylaxis to contrast, severe renal impairment, and high-risk bleeding. Predictors of 14-day coronary angiography were determined using multivariable logistic regression. We compared mortality and readmissions up to two-year follow-up. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the two cohorts. Results Of 6,172 initially screened patients, 4,118 met criteria for acute ischemic HF. After exclusions, 2,994 were included in the study. Of these, 1,567 (52.3%) underwent early angiography and 1,427 (47.7%) did not (median age 75 [IQR 65–83] years and 40.9% women). Clinical factors associated with greater odds of early angiography included previous MI, anginal symptoms at presentation, New York Heart Association (NYHA) III-IV symptoms, and family history of coronary artery disease. After IPTW, early angiography was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR 0.74, 95% CI; 0.61–0.90, p=0.002) and cardiovascular death (HR 0.72, 95% CI; 0.56–0.93, p=0.012) at two years. HF readmissions were also lower with early angiography (HR 0.84, 95% CI; 0.71–0.99, p=0.042). Conclusion Early coronary angiography in acute ischemic heart failure was associated with lower all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and HF readmissions. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Canadian Institute of Health Research Grant

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→