Trends, management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in chronic liver disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There are limited data on the management and outcomes of chronic liver disease (CLD) patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), particularly according to the subtype of CLD. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2004-2015), we examined outcomes of AMI patients stratified by severity and sub-types of CLD. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of receipt of invasive management and adverse outcomes in CLD groups compared with no-CLD. RESULTS: Of 7 024 723 AMI admissions, 54 283 (0.8%) had a CLD diagnosis. CLD patients were less likely to undergo coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (aOR 0.62, 95%CI 0.60-0.63 and 0.59, 95%CI 0.58-0.60, respectively), and had increased odds of adverse outcomes including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (1.19, 95%CI 1.15-1.23), mortality (1.30, 95%CI 1.25-1.34) and major bleeding (1.74, 95%CI 1.67-1.81). In comparison to the non-severe CLD sub-groups, patients with all forms of severe CLD had the lower utilization of CA and PCI (P < .05). Among severe CLD patients, those with alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) had the lowest utilization of CA and PCI; patients with ALD and other CLD (OCLD) had more adverse outcomes than the viral hepatitis sub-group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: CLD patients presenting with AMI are less likely to receive invasive management and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Further differences are observed depending on the type as well as severity of CLD, with the worst management and clinical outcomes observed in those with severe ALD and OCLD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".