MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

TOTAL risk score for predicting safe very early discharge in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)

2021· article· en· W3211233272 on OpenAlexaff
Ankit Garg, Rao Ps, R. P. Quinn, Craig Ainsworth, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, John A. Cairns, Warren J. Cantor, Vladimír Džavík, R.M.P. Pérez Gómez, Saško Kedev, Shahar Lavi, Goran Stanković, Sanjit S. Jolly

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaSouthlake Regional Health CenterPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIMyocardial infarctionCohortFramingham Risk ScoreInternal medicineStepwise regressionPercutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Previously validated risk scores for identifying low-risk patients after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have led to acceptance of the safety and feasibility of discharge after 48–72 hours of hospitalization, reducing hospital length of stay and costs. With ongoing improvements in outcomes, it may be possible to select patients who are safe to discharge very early (24–48 hours) but this has never been evaluated. Purpose We sought to develop and validate a novel risk score for identifying low-risk patients suitable for very early discharge (≤48 hours of hospitalization) post-STEMI. Methods We derived a novel risk score using data from patients enrolled in the Trial of Routine Aspiration Thrombectomy with PCI versus PCI alone in Patients with STEMI (TOTAL). The TOTAL database was randomly divided into a derivation cohort with 2/3 of the composite events and non-events and remaining 1/3 as the internal validation cohort. Using the derivation cohort, we identified risk factors for cardiovascular death (CV) or non-fatal cardiac arrest by performing a univariate and multivariable stepwise regression analysis of baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. Each co-variate was assigned an integer score based on regression coefficients and the novel TOTAL risk score was developed by adding points from each risk factor profile. We externally validated the TOTAL score using data from the Radial versus Femoral Access for Coronary Intervention (RIVAL) trial. Results The TOTAL derivation cohort included 6331 participants with 287 events (CV death/cardiac arrest). Twelve independent risk-factors associated with risk of CV death and non-fatal cardiac arrest at 1 year were selected and weighted for the TOTAL risk score (Table 1). In the TOTAL validation cohort (n=3166), patients with a TOTAL score of 0–4 points (n=779 (24.6%)) were categorized as very low risk with only a 0.1% risk of CV death/cardiac arrest observed within 24 hours of hospitalization, and no further events observed between 24 hours and 30 days post-STEMI. In the RIVAL validation dataset (n=1451), patients with a TOTAL score of 0–4 points (n=737 (50.7%)) had a 0.3% risk of CV death/cardiac arrest within 24 hours, with no further events observed between 24 hours and 72 hours of hospitalization. Conclusion The TOTAL risk score identified a very low risk subset of patients for whom early discharge, 24–48 hours post-STEMI, is likely safe. These findings have the potential to change practice and support early discharge after STEMI. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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