MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18546: Vasoactive Medication Variability in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

2023· article· en· W4389957898 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Schenck, Soumya Banna, Fouad Chouairi, Cory Heck, Megan Grammatico, Ajar Kochar, Jennifer Miao, Tariq Ali, Jacob C. Jentzer, Sean van Diepen, Elliott Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockMyocardial infarctionDobutamineVasoactiveInotropeOdds ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalCardiologyEpinephrineAnesthesiaPopulationNorepinephrineDopamineHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) often require vasoactive medications to maintain organ perfusion. However, there are limited data on the real-world use of vasoactive medications in this population. Methods: We used the Vizient® Clinical Data Base to identify patients aged ≥18 years who were admitted between 2015-2019 with AMI-CS and required mechanical ventilation. We report the proportion of patients receiving vasoactive medications by day as well as site-level variability for vasoactive medication strategies using the median odds ratio (MOR), which quantifies the odds that a patient receives a strategy at two randomly selected sites after adjusting for covariates. Results: We identified 10,758 patients from 160 centers admitted with AMI-CS. The median age was 65.8 years, 29.8% were female, 83.6% received vasoactive medications in the first 5 days, and 56.9% received temporary mechanical support. The most used vasoactive medication on day 1 was norepinephrine (48.2%), followed by epinephrine (31.5%), and dopamine (16.9%) ( Figure ). On day 1, 65.9% and 36.2% of patients receiving vasoactive medications were prescribed ≥2 or ≥3 different medications, respectively, including 111 different combinations. Among patients receiving inotropes (N=4,485), there was a nearly 3-fold difference in milrinone use across sites after accounting for differences in patient characteristics (MOR 2.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.39-3.38). For patients receiving either norepinephrine, dopamine, or epinephrine on day 1 (N=3,224), there was a nearly 2-fold difference in the use of norepinephrine as a first-line vasopressor across sites (MOR 1.84; 95% CI: 1.59-2.06). Conclusion: Norepinephrine is the most commonly used vasoactive medication in patients with AMI-CS. However, there is substantial site-level variability in vasoactive medication strategies, which require further study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices→French-language works237,207→