Clinical Study of The Early Application of Lvabradine For Acute Anterior Myocardial Infarction Patients After PCI With Early Heart Failure To Observe Cardiac Function And Prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundThe incidence of acute myocardial infarction is increasing each year. Percutaneous coronary intervention has become highly preferred for patients with acute myocardial infarction because it not traumatic and improves heart function. However, the mortality and disability rates are still high. For the first time, we used ivabradine in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction. We expect that this new method will enhance heart function and clinical prognosis because of heart rate control, decreases in heart preload and improvements in left ventricular end-diastolic volume.Method and analysisThis is a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter and optimally designed clinical trial. A total of 500 patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction after Percutaneous coronary intervention（PCI）with early heart failure will be enrolled. Eligible subjects will be randomized at a 1:1 ratio to take the standard drug treatment or receive the standard drug treatment plus ivabradine. The primary outcome measure is left ventricular end-diastolic volume. Left ventricular ejection fraction, adverse cardiac events, and the Canadian angina pectoris score will be evaluated as secondary endpoints. Blood biochemical testing will be used as the safety endpoints. Ethics and dissemination The clinical research will be carried out in strict accordance with the relevant Chinese laws and regulations, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the ethical and scientific principles stipulated by the Chinese GCP. All participants will provide informed consent. The personal information of patients will be kept confidential. Findings from the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences.ClinicalTrials.govID:ChiCTR2000032731,Registered8May,2020 http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=53275 Trial Statusversion number: Protocol version 1.0., approved9 May，2020Trial ongoingStudy execute time: From 1 September 2020 to 31 Octomber 2022Recruiting time: From 8 May 2020 to 31 December 2022
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".