MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3107162265 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1745

Sex disparities in completeness of revascularisation and outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease

2020· article· en· W3107162265 on OpenAlexaff
N.A. Mahdi, Bryan Har, Michael M. Graham, Ameen Basha, Anna Bizios

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIInternal medicinePercutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyMyocardial infarctionCoronary artery diseaseCulpritHazard ratioAcute coronary syndromePopulationOdds ratioConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), complete revascularisation is associated with reduced mortality compared to culprit only revascularisation. However, there are limited data regarding the relationship between sex and revascularisation strategy in STEMI with multivessel CAD and outcomes. Purpose Our aim is to evaluate sex related differences in treatment strategies and outcomes in patients with STEMI and multi-vessel CAD. Methods We included all consecutive patients from a provincial registry presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 2008–2015. The study population consisted of 856 females and 3152 males who were treated with culprit vessel only PCI or complete revascularisation using staged-PCI. The outcomes were death, admission for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and admission for heart failure (HF). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association between treatment strategy and outcomes. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to identify predictors of patients undergoing staged-PCI versus culprit vessel only PCI. Results At 3 years, the incidence of death was higher in females than males (15.9% vs. 8.2%, p<0.001), as were HF admissions (10.3% vs. 5.0%, p<0.001). Females underwent less staged-PCI than males (10.4% vs. 14.8%; adjusted odds ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.57–0.97). Younger age and increasing Duke jeopardy score were also associated with performing staged-PCI. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, females had a higher risk of death (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.07–1.71), ACS admission (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.00–1.60), and HF admission (HR 1.38; 95% CI 1.03–1.85). Following additional adjustment for revascularisation strategy, only death and HF admission remained significant. Females undergoing staged-PCI had similar survival to males (figure), with no significant interaction between revascularisation strategy and sex (p for interaction = 0.19) Conclusion Females with STEMI and multivessel CAD were less likely to be treated with complete revascularisation by staged-PCI and had worse outcomes when compared to males. Survival in both males and females treated with staged-PCI was similar. Our study suggests that addressing the lack of complete revascularisation in females presenting with STEMI may improve outcomes. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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