MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200495478 · doi:10.1007/s43678-021-00255-z

From STEMI to occlusion MI: paradigm shift and ED quality improvement

2021· letter· en· W4200495478 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse McLaren, H. Pendell Meyers, Stephen W. Smith, Lucas B. Chartier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality managementCardiologyCoronary occlusionInternal medicineOcclusionOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A generation ago the ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) paradigm led to quality improvement (QI) in the emergency department (ED).Now, insights from angiography and advances in electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation have led to the new paradigm of occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI), creating the possibility of further QI.This article reviews the current STEMI paradigm, the emergence of the OMI paradigm, and the use of QI to continuously improve care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients in the ED. STEMI paradigm and QIThrombolytic therapy in the 1990s led to a paradigm shift in the treatment of AMI through emergent reperfusion.This changed the use of the ECG, from retrospectively classifying AMI into Q-wave/non-Q wave to prospectively identifying those with ST elevation, as a marker of AMIs with persistent occlusion without collateral circulation, which need emergent reperfusion.ED providers responded with QI initiatives to reduce reperfusion delays for AMIs with ST elevation, or STEMI, from emergency nurse-initiated ECG acquisition to emergency physician-initiated cath lab activation.However, from the beginning of the STEMI paradigm there were questions about ECG interpretation at the heart of the diagnostic process.A 1994 report on ED delays published in Annals of Emergency Medicine summarized, "ECG abnormalities may be subtle or open to different interpretation, such as early repolarization or pericarditis.Only borderline or minimal ST-segment elevation may be present, and the emergency physician may be uncertain of its significance.The presence of left bundle branch block or left ventricular hypertrophy may complicate ECG diagnosis.The emergency physician may suspect that the ST elevation is old, but a previous ECG may be unavailable for comparison.The computer interpretation of the ECG on which some physicians rely may be incorrect.The emergency physician may not be sufficiently trained to recognize certain ECG patterns as signs of AMI" [1].At the time little could be done to improve on these quality issues.Those that did not meet STEMI criteria were labeled "non-STEMI" (NSTEMI) and did not receive emergent reperfusion.But in the nearly 30 years since this paradigm emerged, insights from angiography and advances in ECG interpretation have identified the limits of this paradigm and given rise to a new one.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207