MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392143805 · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.02.023

Prophylactic Anticoagulation to Prevent Left Ventricular Thrombus Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4392143805 on OpenAlexaff
Ethan Sacoransky, Danny Yu Jia Ke, Bryce Alexander, Wael Abuzeid

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Cardiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionInternal medicinePercutaneous coronary interventionOdds ratioMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalCardiologyLeft ventricular thrombusThrombus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical practice guidelines from the American Heart Association recommend consideration of prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent left ventricular thrombus (LVT) formation in patients with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. These guidelines were given a low certainty of evidence (class IIb, level C), relying primarily on case studies and expert consensus to inform practice. Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulation, in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy, in the current era of timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Electronic databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from January 2012 through June 2022. A total of 7,378 publications were screened, and 5 publications were eventually included in this review: 1 randomized control trial and 4 retrospective studies involving 1,461 patients. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model and reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of LVT formation, and the secondary outcomes were the rate of major bleeding and systemic embolism. Pooled analysis showed a significantly lower rate of LVT formation (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73, p <0.01) and significantly higher rates of bleeding (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.13 to 7.24, p = 0.03) in the triple therapy group compared with dual antiplatelet therapy. No significant difference was observed in the rate of systemic embolism between the groups (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.13, p = 0.08). In this meta-analysis, there is no conclusive evidence to either support or oppose the use of triple therapy for LVT prevention in patients with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Appropriately powered randomized controlled trials are warranted to further evaluate the benefits of LVT prevention against the risks of major bleeding in this population.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.022
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of CardiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207