Effects of restrictive vs liberal transfusion strategies on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia: The 6-month follow up primary results of the MINT trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) trial identified a statistically non-significant increase in risk of 30-day death or myocardial infarction (MI) (primary endpoint) and all-cause death and a statistically significant increase in cardiac death in patients with an acute MI and anemia assigned to a restrictive transfusion strategy compared to a liberal transfusion strategy. Purpose To determine the effect of a restrictive versus a liberal transfusion strategy on all-cause and cause-specific death 6-months post-randomization (secondary endpoint). Methods The MINT trial randomized 3,504 patients with MI and hemoglobin <10 g/dL to a restrictive (hemoglobin threshold of 7 or 8 g/dL) or liberal (hemoglobin threshold of <10 g/dL) transfusion strategy implemented during the index hospitalization. Sites contacted patients at 30-days and 6-months post-randomization and recorded patient vital status, date of death, and site-reported cause of death (categorized as cardiac, non-cardiac, or unknown). A competing risk analysis (cumulative incidence estimation and Fine-Gray models) was conducted to estimate the effect of transfusion strategy on all-cause and cause-specific death. Results Patients were enrolled from 6 countries between 2017 and 2023; average age was 72 years, and 46% were female. Vital status at 6-months was obtained for 3419 (97.6%) randomized patients (restrictive: 98.1%; liberal: 97.0%); 2,690 (76.8%) patients were alive and 729 (20.8%) had died. At 6-months, all-cause death occurred in 376 patients in the restrictive arm (21.7%) and 353 in the liberal arm (20.5%), hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.93–1.24. Compared to the liberal arm, a greater proportion of deaths in the restrictive arm were cardiac (41.8% vs. 29.8%). The risk of cardiac death was significantly higher in patients in the restrictive arm (9.0% vs. 6.1%, HR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.19–1.94) whereas risk of non-cardiac death (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70–1.08) and unknown cause of death (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.64–1.21) did not differ between the restrictive and the liberal arms. Conclusions In patients with acute MI and anemia, the 6-month incidence of all-cause death did not differ with a restrictive versus a liberal transfusion strategy. However, the numerically higher rate of all-cause mortality, seen with the restrictive strategy at 30-days, persisted through 6-months and was driven by cardiac causes. The long-term findings from the MINT trial suggest that a restrictive transfusion strategy may be harmful for patients with MI and anemia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".