Reperfusion in Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock and Prolonged Interhospital Transport Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred revascularization option. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of a pharmacoinvasive approach for patients with cardiogenic shock presenting to a non-PCI hospital with prolonged interhospital transport times. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of geographically extensive ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction network (2006–2021), 426 patients with cardiogenic shock and ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction presented to a non–PCI-capable hospital and underwent reperfusion therapy (53.8% pharmacoinvasive and 46.2% pPCI). The primary clinical outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, renal failure requiring dialysis, cardiac arrest, or mechanical circulatory support, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding defined as an intracranial hemorrhage or bleeding that required transfusion was compared in an inverse probability weighted model. The electrocardiographic reperfusion outcome of interest was the worst residual ST-segment–elevation. RESULTS: Patients with pharmacoinvasive treatment had longer median interhospital transport (3 hours versus 1 hour) and shorter median symptom-onset-to-reperfusion (125 minute-to-needle versus 419 minute-to-balloon) times. ST-segment resolution ≥50% on the postfibrinolysis ECG was 56.6%. Postcatheterization, worst lead residual ST-segment–elevation <1 mm (57.3% versus 46.3%; P =0.01) was higher in the pharmacoinvasive compared with the pPCI cohort, but no differences were observed in the worst lead ST-segment–elevation resolution ≥50% (77.4% versus 81.8%; P =0.57). The primary clinical end point was lower in the pharmacoinvasive cohort (35.2% versus 57.0%; inverse probability weighted odds ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26–0.72]; P <0.01) compared with patients who received pPCI. An interaction between interhospital transfer time and reperfusion strategy with all-cause mortality was observed, favoring a pharmacoinvasive approach with transfer times >60 minutes. The incidence of the primary safety outcome was 10.1% in the pharmacoinvasive arm versus 18.7% in pPCI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.14–1.09]; P =0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction presenting with cardiogenic shock and prolonged interhospital transport times, a pharmacoinvasive approach was associated with improved electrocardiographic reperfusion and a lower rate of death, dialysis, or mechanical circulatory support without an increase in major bleeding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".