MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A liberal blood transfusion strategy is safe in patients with myocardial infarction, anemia, and heart failure: lessons from MINT

2024· article· en· W4403806727 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M. Goldsweig, William J. Kostis, Brandon M. Herbert, Jocelyne Benatar, Claire Bouleti, Estêvão Lanna Figueiredo, Thao Huynh, Brian J. Potter, Daniel B. Sims, Jordan B. Strom, Mikhael Torosoff, Santaram Vallurupalli, Jeffrey L. Carson, Maria M. Brooks, John H. Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionHeart failureAnemiaCardiologyBlood transfusionIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia, the Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) trial found a trend toward increased 30-day death or recurrent MI with a restrictive compared with a liberal blood transfusion strategy. Patients with and without heart failure (HF) may respond differently to blood transfusion. Purpose To characterize the effects of restrictive vs. liberal transfusion strategies on clinical outcomes in patients with MI and anemia with and without baseline HF. Methods In the MINT trial, 3504 patients with MI and hemoglobin <10 g/dL were randomized to restrictive (7-8 g/dL) or liberal (10 g/dL) transfusion thresholds. We compared outcomes between patients with and without baseline HF, defined as any history of HF, acute HF, or baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <45%. Outcomes included death or incident HF, death or recurrent MI, death, and incident HF, all at 30 days. Results Compared with patients without baseline HF (n=1633), patients with baseline HF (overall n=1871 (history of HF n=1066, acute HF n=780, LVEF <45% n= 1099) were older, more frequently male and Black, and had higher rates of prior PCI, diabetes, and hypertension. In the restrictive strategy, patients with and without baseline HF received an average of 0.63 and 0.80 units of blood and had a median LOS of 6 and 4 days, respectively. In the liberal strategy, patients with and without baseline HF received an average of 2.44 and 2.49 units of blood and had a median LOS of 5 and 4 days, respectively. Patients with baseline HF had higher rates of death or incident HF (18.0% vs. 10.0%, risk ratio [RR]=1.79 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.50-2.13]), death or recurrent MI (17.6% vs. 13.5%, RR=1.31 [95% CI 1.12-1.53]), and death (10.5% vs. 7.5%, RR 1.41 [95% CI 1.14-1.75]). Among patients with baseline HF, a restrictive transfusion strategy resulted in a trend toward an increase in death or HF and death or MI compared with a liberal transfusion strategy (Table, Figure). Among patients without baseline HF, the risk of incident HF was lower with restrictive than with liberal transfusion strategy. Conclusions Among patients with MI and anemia, a restrictive transfusion strategy resulted in a greater increase in death or HF, death or MI, and death in patients with baseline HF than in patients without baseline HF. A liberal transfusion strategy is safe for patients with MI and anemia, including those with prior or acute HF.TableFigure

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→