MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Temporal trends and predictors of emergency department visits and hospital readmissions in angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA): a population-based study of 85,573 adults

2023· article· en· W4388600221 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sunny Patel, Michelle Fung, Sonia Butalia, Todd J. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseEmergency departmentChest painAnginaRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medicineAcute coronary syndromePopulationInternal medicineCohortUnstable anginaMyocardial infarctionCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Chest pain in patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA) is a diagnostic and treatment challenge, resulting in a significant burden on healthcare resources. With increasing recognition of ANOCA, it is uncertain if the healthcare resource utilization of patients with ANOCA has changed over time. We aimed to determine whether emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions in patients with ANOCA has changed over time and their predictors. Methods A retrospective population-based cohort of patients who had their first cardiac angiography for a chest pain syndrome in Alberta between 2002 and 2020 were extracted from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) database. A temporal trend analysis was performed to investigate the proportion of ED visits and hospital readmissions in ANOCA and obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). The predictors of ED visits and readmissions were also analyzed. Results In our analysis, 85,573 patients were included (26% ANOCA, 31% female, mean age 62.1 ± 12.0 years, 65% ED visit≥1, 30% readmission). The percentage of patients with ANOCA and obstructive CAD having an ED visit ranged between 26.3% to 30.7% and 47.7% to 53.1%, respectively. The percentage of patients with ANOCA and obstructive CAD having readmission declined slightly over time, from 6.5% to 3.8% in ANOCA and 24.8% to 15.3% in obstructive CAD. Obstructive CAD was found to be the most significant predictor of both ED visits (OR=1.933, 95% CI=1.837–2.034), and readmissions (HR=2.638, 95% CI=2.518–2.764), with congestive heart failure (OR=1.302, 95% CI=1.125–1.507) , peripheral artery disease (OR=1.291, 95% CI=1.116–1.494), cerebrovascular disease (OR=1.382, 95% CI=1.224–1.559), myocardial infarction (vs stable angina (SA): OR=1.233, 95% CI=1.172–1.297), and unstable angina (vs SA: OR=1.564, 95% CI=1.466-1.668–0.89) also contributing to ED visits, and diabetes (HR=1.276, 95% CI=1.229–1.323) and stable angina (vs MI: HR=0.746, 95% CI=0.719–0.774; vs UA: HR=0.895, 95% CI=0.857–0.934) contributing to readmissions. Conclusions Emergency department visits for patients with ANOCA have remained stable over time, with a slight decline in hospital readmissions. Patients with ANOCA had fewer ED visits and readmissions than obstructive CAD patients, and no sex differences were observed in the utilization of healthcare resources. This study suggests that education and follow-up interventions are still needed for patients with ANOCA.Comparison of baseline characteristicsED visits & Readmission Temporal Trends

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)0.001
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 score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→