MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13806: Association Between Coronary Angiography With or Without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

2016· article· en· W4395039292 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler F. Vadeboncoeur, Vatsal Chikani, Daniel W. Spaite, Chengcheng Hu, Margaret Mullins, Bentley J. Bobrow

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsBentley (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionCoronary angiographyCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Coronary angiography (CA) is recommended after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) when ST-elevation is present but the ideal timing and benefit of CA when ST-elevation is not present are unknown. Methods: Prospective observational study of adult (age >17) OHCA of presumed cardiac etiology from 1/01/2010-12/31/2014 who were admitted to one of 40 recognized cardiac receiving centers within a state resuscitation center network. DNR patients, those who did not achieve ROSC, and/or those who died in the ED were excluded since the likelihood of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) impacting outcome in these patients is low. An in-hospital database was linked with a statewide OHCA database. Results: Among 6,615 cases, 1,247 remained for analysis after exclusion [DNR (1254); failed to achieve ROSC/died in ED (4,020); missing prehospital variable (92); and missing outcome (2)]. Median age was 63 and 70% were male. There were 62% witnessed arrests, 54% received bystander CPR and the initial rhythm was VF/VT in 55%. Sixty-four percent survived to hospital discharge, 82% of which had a CPC score of 1 or 2. Of the 326 STEMI cases, 298 (91%) underwent CA with resultant PCI in 206 (63%). Of the 849 non-STEMI cases, 361 (43%) underwent CA with resultant PCI in 107 (13%). Overall survival was: 54% in cases without CA; 73% in cases with CA but without PCI; and 73% in those with PCI. Survival in non-STEMI cases was: 55% in cases without CA; 82% in cases with CA but without PCI; and 80% in those with PCI. In non-STEMI cases, the adjusted odds of survival for CA without PCI vs no CA was 2.70 (95% CI: 1.81, 4.02) and for PCI versus no CA it was 2.01 (95% CI: 1.16, 3.48). Conclusion: In this statewide analysis over 90% of OHCA cases with STEMI underwent CA. In cases that were not STEMI, CA was strongly and independently associated with survival regardless of whether PCI was performed. Since there is no reason to believe that CA without PCI confers a survival benefit, these findings suggest a component of selection bias in those without STEMI who undergo CA.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→