Palliative Care Use in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Do-Not-Resuscitate Status From a Nationwide Inpatient Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the predictors, treatments, and outcomes of the use of palliative care in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who had a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sampling database for 2015-2018, we examined the predictors, in-hospital procedures, and outcomes of palliative care recipients among patients with AMI who had a DNR order. RESULTS: We identified 339,270 admissions with AMI that had a DNR order, including patients who received palliative care (n=113,215 [33.4%]). Compared with patients who did not receive palliative care, these patients were more frequently younger (median age, 81 vs 83 years; P<.001), were less likely to be female (50.9% [57,626 of 113,215] vs 54.7% [123,652 of 226,055]; P<.001), and were more likely to present with cardiac arrest (11.6% [13,133 of 113,215] vs 6.9% [15,598 of 226,055]; P<.001). Patients were more likely to receive palliative care at a large (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.44 to 1.50) or teaching (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 2.04 to 2.16) hospitals compared with small or rural ones. Patients receiving palliative care were less likely to be treated invasively, with reduced rates of invasive coronary angiography (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.47) and percutaneous coronary intervention (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.48), and were more likely to die in the hospital (52.4% [59,325 of 113,215] vs 22.9% [51,766 of 226,055]). CONCLUSION: In patients who had a DNR status and were hospitalized and received a diagnosis of AMI, only one-third received palliative care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".