Antithrombotic Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the CONNECT AF+PCI Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), selecting an antithrombotic regimen requires balancing risks of ischemic cardiac events, stroke, and bleeding. Methods We studied 467 patients with AF undergoing PCI in the time period from December 2015 to July 2018 identified via a chart audit by 47 Canadian cardiologists in the CONNECT AF+PCI (the Co ordinated N ational N etwork to E ngage Interventional C ardiologists in the Antithrombotic T reatment of Patients With A trial F ibrillation Undergoing P ercutaneous C oronary I ntervention) study, to determine patterns of initial antithrombotic therapy selection. Results The median (25th, 75th percentile) CHADS 2 score was 2 (1, 3), and PCI was performed in the setting of acute coronary syndrome in 62.1%. Triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) was the initial treatment in 62.7%, dual-pathway therapy in 25.7%, and dual antiplatelet therapy in 11.6%, with a temporal increase in use of dual-pathway therapy during the course of the study; median intended TAT duration was 1 (1, 3) month. Compared with patients selected for TAT, patients selected for dual-pathway therapy were less likely to have prior myocardial infarction (35.8% vs 25.8%, P = 0.045) and prior PCI (33.8% vs 23.3%, P = 0.03), and they received shorter total length of stents (38 [23, 56] vs 30 [20, 46] mm, P = 0.03). Patients selected for dual-pathway therapy had a higher prevalence of prior stroke/transient ischemic attack (13.0% vs 23.3%, P = 0.01). There was no difference in prevalence of anemia (21.5% vs 25.8%, P = 0.30). Use of dual-pathway therapy was similar among patients with acute coronary syndrome and those with stable disease (24.1% vs 28.2%, P = 0.32). Conclusions Approximately one-quarter of AF patients undergoing PCI are treated with dual-pathway therapy in Canadian practice, with its use increasing during the studied period. Patients selected for dual-pathway therapy have less-complex coronary disease history and intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".