MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220790997 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.831143

Comparison of the Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes of STEMI Patients Presenting With vs. Those of Patients Presenting Without COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4220790997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanjiao Wang, Linlin Kang, Ching‐Wen Chien, Jiawen Xu, You Peng, Sizhong Xing, Tao‐Hsin Tung

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisCardiogenic shockMyocardial infarctionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cochrane LibraryObservational studyThrombosisThrombusCardiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives This study aimed to investigate the differences in the characteristics, management, and clinical outcomes of patients with and that of those without coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection who had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods Databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched up to July 2021. Observational studies that reported on the characteristics, management, or clinical outcomes and those published as full-text articles were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of all included studies. Results A total of 27,742 patients from 13 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Significant delay in symptom onset to first medical contact (SO-to-FMC) time (mean difference = 23.42 min; 95% CI: 5.85–40.99 min; p = 0.009) and door-to-balloon (D2B) time (mean difference = 12.27 min; 95% CI: 5.77–18.78 min; p = 0.0002) was observed in COVID-19 patients. Compared to COVID-19 negative patients, those who are positive patients had significantly higher levels of C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and thrombus grade ( p < 0.05) and showed more frequent use of thrombus aspiration and glycoprotein IIbIIIa (Gp2b3a) inhibitor ( p < 0.05). COVID-19 positive patients also had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (OR = 5.98, 95% CI: 4.78–7.48, p < 0.0001), cardiogenic shock (OR = 2.75, 95% CI: 2.02–3.76, p < 0.0001), and stent thrombosis (OR = 5.65, 95% CI: 2.41–13.23, p < 0.0001). They were also more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (OR = 4.26, 95% CI: 2.51–7.22, p < 0.0001) and had a longer length of stay (mean difference = 4.63 days; 95% CI: 2.56–6.69 days; p < 0.0001). Conclusions This study revealed that COVID-19 infection had an impact on the time of initial medical intervention for patients with STEMI after symptom onset and showed that COVID-19 patients with STEMI were more likely to have thrombosis and had poorer outcomes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207