MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

STREAM-2: Half-Dose Tenecteplase or Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Older Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized, Open-Label Trial

2023· article· en· W4384119928 on OpenAlexaff
Frans Van de Werf, Arsen Ristić, О. В. Аверков, Alexandra Arias‐Mendoza, Yves Lambert, José Francisco Kerr Saraiva, Pablo Sepúlveda, Fernando Rosell Ortiz, J. French, Ljilja B. Musić, Katleen Vandenberghe, Kris Bogaerts, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Alain Pagès, Thierry Danays, Kevin R. Bainey, Peter Sinnaeve, Patrick Goldstein, Robert C. Welsh, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR Centre
FundersKU Leuven
KeywordsMedicineTenecteplaseConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineClinical endpointThrombolysisStroke (engine)Fibrinolytic agentTIMIRandomizationST segmentRandomized controlled trialCardiogenic shockTissue plasminogen activator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) guidelines recommend pharmaco-invasive treatment if timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unavailable. Full-dose tenecteplase is associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage in older patients. Whether pharmaco-invasive treatment with half-dose tenecteplase is effective and safe in older patients with STEMI is unknown. METHODS: STREAM-2 (Strategic Reperfusion in Elderly Patients Early After Myocardial Infarction) was an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, multicenter study. Patients ≥60 years of age with ≥2 mm ST-segment elevation in 2 contiguous leads, unable to undergo primary PCI within 1 hour, were randomly assigned (2:1) to half-dose tenecteplase followed by coronary angiography and PCI (if indicated) 6 to 24 hours after randomization, or to primary PCI. Efficacy end points of primary interest were ST resolution and the 30-day composite of death, shock, heart failure, or reinfarction. Safety assessments included stroke and nonintracranial bleeding. RESULTS: Patients were assigned to pharmaco-invasive treatment (n=401) or primary PCI (n=203). Median times from randomization to tenecteplase or sheath insertion were 10 and 81 minutes, respectively. After last angiography, 85.2% of patients undergoing pharmaco-invasive treatment and 78.4% of patients undergoing primary PCI had ≥50% resolution of ST-segment elevation; their residual median sums of ST deviations were 4.5 versus 5.5 mm, respectively. Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3 at last angiography was ≈87% in both groups. The composite clinical end point occurred in 12.8% (51/400) of patients undergoing pharmaco-invasive treatment and 13.3% (27/203) of patients undergoing primary PCI (relative risk, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.62-1.48]). Six intracranial hemorrhages occurred in the pharmaco-invasive arm (1.5%): 3 were protocol violations (excess anticoagulation in 2 and uncontrolled hypertension in 1). No intracranial bleeding occurred in the primary PCI arm. The incidence of major nonintracranial bleeding was low in both groups (<1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Halving the dose of tenecteplase in a pharmaco-invasive strategy in this early-presenting, older STEMI population was associated with electrocardiographic changes that were at least comparable to those after primary PCI. Similar clinical efficacy and angiographic end points occurred in both treatment groups. The risk of intracranial hemorrhage was higher with half-dose tenecteplase than with primary PCI. If timely PCI is unavailable, this pharmaco-invasive strategy is a reasonable alternative, provided that contraindications to fibrinolysis are observed and excess anticoagulation is avoided. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02777580.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.323
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations54
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207