Complete Revascularization in Patients Undergoing a Pharmacoinvasive Strategy for ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the COMPLETE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The COMPLETE trial (Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization to Treat Multi-Vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) demonstrated that staged nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced major cardiovascular events in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. It is unclear whether consistent benefit is observed in patients undergoing a pharmacoinvasive strategy compared with primary PCI. Methods: Following culprit lesion PCI, 4041 patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomized to either routine nonculprit lesion PCI or culprit lesion only PCI. In a prespecified analysis, we determined the treatment effect in 303 patients undergoing a pharmacoinvasive strategy versus 3738 patients undergoing primary PCI on the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction and the second coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. Results: The first coprimary was reduced with complete revascularization both in the patients undergoing a pharmacoinvasive strategy (2.1%/y versus 4.7%/y, hazard ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21–0.97]) and in patients undergoing primary PCI (2.7%/y versus 3.6%/y, hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62–0.95]; interaction P =0.18). The second coprimary outcome was reduced with complete revascularization in patients undergoing a pharmacoinvasive strategy (2.3%/y versus 8.5%/y, hazard ratio, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.14–0.56]), and in patients undergoing primary PCI (3.2%/y versus 6.0%/y, hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.44–0.64], interaction P =0.07). Conclusions: Among patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, complete revascularization with multivessel PCI consistently reduces major cardiovascular events in patients undergoing an initial pharmacoinvasive strategy as well as in those undergoing primary PCI. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01740479.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".