MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Fifteen-year mortality outcomes in the APEX-AMI trial compared to the general ST-elevation myocardial infarction population in Canada: Exploring lessons from numerators and denominators

2023· article· en· W4388594399 on OpenAlexaffabout
Padma Kaul, Douglas C. Dover, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Robert C. Welsh, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineApex (geometry)Myocardial infarctionConventional PCIPopulationST segmentInternal medicineClinical trialCardiologyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background It is well established that patients enrolled in clinical trials tend to be younger, more likely male, and have fewer comorbidities. Moreover, sites that enroll patients in randomized trials (RT) are often tertiary care centres in urban areas especially in the setting of STEMI. The impact of these potential selection biases on clinical outcomes both within and well beyond the proscribed RT follow-up window have not been adequately explored. Objective To compare 15-year mortality of ST elevation myocardial infarction of Canadian (STEMI) patients with high-risk electrocardiographic findings enrolled within 6 hours of symptom onset undergoing primary PCI in the APEX-AMI clinical trial of Pexelizumab (APEX-AMI group) with STEMI patients presenting to 25 APEX-AMI enrolling sites (APEX-AMI sites group); and STEMI patients presenting to 400 other sites (non-APEX-AMI site group). Methods APEX-AMI enrolled patients between 07/13/2004 – 05/11/2006. We conducted a probabilistic linkage (based on admission date, discharge date, age, sex, province, diagnosis of MI, presence of comorbidities) between APEX-AMI and the Canadian national Discharge Abstract Database (DAD), excluding Quebec, for the same time period. These data were further linked to tax files (for socio-economic data) and vital statistics data to obtain mortality status as of 2020. Results Of the 335 Canadian participants in APEX-AMI, 143 were from Quebec and were excluded. Of the remaining 192 patients, 188 (97.9%) were linked with the DAD. There were 8,470 patients in the APEX-AMI sites and 10,940 in the non-APEX-AMI sites groups, respectively (Table 1). Patients enrolled in APEX-AMI were less likely to be female, more affluent, have a lower comorbidity burden as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index, and higher PCI rates. Ninety-day all-cause mortality in the three groups was 4.3%, 8.5%, 12.7% in the APEX-AMI, APEX-AMI site, and non-APEX-AMI site groups, respectively. At 15-years, mortality rates were 34.0%, 45.8%, and 52.2% in the three groups (p<0.01, Figure). Enrollment in APEX-AMI was associated with an unadjusted 45% reduction in risk of 15-year mortality (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.43-0.70). However, this association was attenuated after adjusting for demographic and clinical factors (adjusted HR (aHR), 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54-0.88), and completely nullified after adjusting for PCI (aHR, 0.82, 95% CI: 0.64-1.05). Conclusions Our study demonstrates the feasibility and value of extending clinical trial follow-up via linkage with routinely collected administrative data. While enrollment in clinical trials appears to be associated with better long-term outcomes, our findings highlight the need to be vigilant to the potential for selection bias, the generalizability of trial findings and the potential to more broadly enhance long-term STEMI 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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.531
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.094 · 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 venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→