MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3183098516 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.019167

Predictors of the Use of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction Post‐ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction

2021· article· en· W3183098516 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Eric C. Wong, Christopher B. Fordyce, Graham C. Wong, Terry Lee, Michele Perry‐Arnesen, Martha Mackay, Joel Singer, John A. Cairns, Ricky D. Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalFraser HealthCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesProvidence Health CareProvidence Health Care Research InstituteVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteBoston Scientific CorporationSanofiAstraZenecaServierPfizer
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionInternal medicineCardiologyMyocardial infarctionHeart failureEplerenonePopulationSpironolactone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Guidelines recommend mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% following a myocardial infarction plus heart failure or diabetes mellitus, based on mortality benefit in the EPHESUS (Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study) trial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world utilization of MRAs for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with left ventricular dysfunction. Methods and Results The prospective, population-based, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority STEMI database was linked with local outpatient cardiology records from 2007 to 2018. EPHESUS criteria were used to define post-STEMI MRA eligibility (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% plus clinical heart failure or diabetes mellitus, and no dialysis-dependent renal dysfunction). The primary outcome was MRA prescription among eligible patients at discharge and the secondary outcome was MRA prescription within 3 months postdischarge. Of 2691 patients with STEMI, 317 (12%) were MRA eligible, and 70 (22%) eligible patients were prescribed an MRA at discharge. Among eligible patients with no MRA at discharge, 12/126 (9.5%) with documented postdischarge follow-up were prescribed an MRA within 3 months. In multivariable analysis, left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio [OR], 1.55 per 5% left ventricular ejection fraction decrease; 95% CI, 1.26-1.90) and calendar year (OR, 1.23 per year, 95% CI, 1.11-1.37) were associated with MRA prescription at discharge. Other prespecified variables were not associated with MRA prescription. Conclusions In this contemporary STEMI cohort, only 1 in 4 MRA-eligible patients were prescribed an MRA within 3 months following hospitalization despite high-quality evidence for use. Novel decision-support tools are required to optimize pharmacotherapy decisions during hospitalization and follow-up to target this gap in post-STEMI care.

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)0.003
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension→French-language works237,207→