Safety of Bronchoscopy after Acute Coronary Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bronchoscopy is a safe procedure which is frequently performed for the investigation of respiratory diseases. Current guidelines recommend to delay bronchoscopy for 4-6 weeks after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), as this period is theoretically considered at risk for new onset of ACS. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and the tolerance of bronchoscopy in patients with ACS (≤30 days) and to compare outcomes with matched controls. METHODS: All consecutive patients who had a bronchoscopy performed in the first 30 days after an ACS in the bronchoscopy suite were included. A group of patients with ACS who did not undergo bronchoscopy (controls) were also included and matched for age, sex, type of ACS, and severity of ACS (GRACE score). RESULTS: Of the 13,646 patients who underwent bronchoscopy between 2010 and 2019, 2,181 had an history of ACS and among those, 87 patients had an ACS (19 with STEMI, 52 with NSTEMI, and 16 unstable angina). Mean interval between ACS and bronchoscopy was of 10.1 ± 8.9 days. Systolic blood pressure and heart rate significantly increased and oxygen saturation significantly decreased during bronchoscopy. The most frequent adverse event was desaturation which occurred in 26% of patients. Reinfarction rate (1.1% vs. 2.3% p = 1.00) and all-cause 30-day mortality (2.3% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.68) were similar in patients who underwent bronchoscopy and in matched controls (n = 87). CONCLUSION: Our study reinforces the safety of bronchoscopy after ACS. When clinically indicated with potential benefits outweighing risks, ACS should not contraindicate bronchoscopy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".