MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Association of coronary angiography with ST-elevation and no ST-elevation in patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation – A substudy of the DOuble SEquential External Defibrillation for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation (DOSE-VF randomized control trial)

2024· article· en· W4392381551 on OpenAlexaff
Saswata Deb, Ian R. Drennan, Linda Turner, Sheldon Cheskes

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricular fibrillationDefibrillationCardiologyInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)ST elevationElectrocardiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (rVF/pVT) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor survival. Double sequential defibrillation (DSED) and vector change (VC) improved survival for rVF/pVT in the DOSE-VF RCT. However, the role of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (angiography/PCI) during the trial is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of ST-elevation (STE) and no ST-elevation (NO-STE) on post-arrest ECG and the use of angiography/PCI in patients with rVF/pVT during the DOSE-VF RCT. METHOD: Adults (≥18-years) with rVF/pVT OHCA randomized in the DOSE-VF RCT who survived to hospital admission were included. The primary analysis compared the proportion of angiography in STE and NO-STE. We performed regression modelling to examine association between STE, the interaction with defibrillation strategy, and survival to discharge controlling for known covariates. RESULTS: We included 151 patients, 74 (49%) with STE and 77 (51%) with NO-STE. The proportion of angiography was higher in the STE cohort than NO-STE (87.8% vs 44.2%, p < 0.001); similarly the proportion of PCI was also higher (75.7% vs 9.1%, p < 0.001). Survival to discharge was similar between STE and NO-STE (63.5% vs 51.9%, p = 0.15). Use of angiography/PCI did not differ between defibrillation strategies. Decreased age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98; p = 0.001) and angiography (OR 9.33, 95% CI 3.60-26.94; p < 0.001) were predictors of survival; however, STE was not. CONCLUSION: We found high rates of angiography/PCI in patients with STE compared to NO-STE, however similar rates of survival. Angiography was an independent predictor of survival. Improved rates of survival employing DSED and VC were independent of angiography/PCI.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResuscitationSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207