MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385191348 · doi:10.1101/2023.07.20.23292978

Temporal trends and factors associated with emergency department visits and hospitalizations in angina with no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA)

2023· preprint· en· W4385191348 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shubh Patel, Marinda Fung, Sonia Butalia, Todd J. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseEmergency departmentAnginaInternal medicineChest painHeart failureCardiologyUnstable anginaLogistic regressionCardiac catheterizationRetrospective cohort studyCohortCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyMyocardial infarctionEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Angina with no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA) presents diagnostic and treatment challenges, significantly burdening healthcare resources as reported in previous studies. This study assessed temporal changes in emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for ANOCA and factors associated with these outcomes. Methods/Results We assessed a retrospective cohort of 85,573 individuals (26% with ANOCA, 31% female, mean age 62.1±12.0 years) who underwent their first cardiac catheterization for chest pain in Alberta from 2002 to 2017. Temporal trend analysis showed ED visits ranged from 26.3% to 30.7% (β=0.21 [95%CI:-0.28 to 0.70];p=0.33) for ANOCA and from 47.7% to 53.1% (β=-0.15[95%CI:-0.87 to 0.57];p=0.63) for obstructive CAD, with no temporal changes in either. Hospitalizations decreased from 6.5% to 3.8% (β=-0.28 [95%CI:-0.47 to -0.09];p=0.010) for ANOCA and from 24.8% to 15.3% (β=-1.45 [95%CI:-1.77 to -1.12];p<0.001) for obstructive CAD. Multivariable logistic regression analysis factors associated with ED visits in individuals with ANOCA included cerebrovascular disease (CEVD) (OR=1.73 [95%CI:1.40–2.15]), congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR=1.91 [95%CI:1.49–2.44]), peripheral artery disease (PAD) (OR=1.61 [95%CI:1.18–2.19), and unstable angina (UA) (versus (vs) stable angina (SA): OR=1.65 [95%CI:1.51–1.80]). Factors associated with hospitalizations in ANOCA included CEVD (OR=1.39 [95%CI:1.11–1.73]), CHF (OR=2.06 [95%CI:1.66–2.56]), hypertension (OR: 1.26 [95%CI:1.14–1.40]), PAD (OR=1.89 [95%CI:1.43–2.50]), and myocardial infarction (vs SA: OR=1.27 [95%CI:1.12–1.44]), and UA (vs SA: OR=1.36 [95%CI:1.22–1.52]). Conclusions ED visits for ANOCA remained stable, while hospitalizations declined over time. Understanding factors associated with recurrent visits may aid clinicians in treatment strategies. Clinical Perspective What is new? This study was the first to characterize emergency department (ED) visits and assess temporal trends of ED visits and hospitalizations in individuals with ANOCA. ED visits for individuals with ANOCA or obstructive CAD have remained stable over time, with a significant decline in hospitalizations for both groups. In contrast to previous studies, individuals with obstructive CAD had higher ED visits and hospitalizations rates than those with ANOCA. What are the clinical implications? Increased recognition of ANOCA may be responsible for decreasing hospitalizations. Despite increased awareness, individuals with ANOCA still frequently visit the ED, highlighting the need for improved education on persistent chest pain and unnecessary ED visits. The development of specialized chest pain clinics using a multidisciplinary approach could reduce unnecessary ED visits and hospitalizations, thereby improving the quality of life for individuals with ANOCA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→