MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415105082 · doi:10.4244/eij-d-25-00005

Impact of complete revascularisation in relation to left ventricular function in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a post hoc analysis of the COMPLETE randomised trial

2025· article· en· W4415105082 on OpenAlexaff
Denise Tiong, Natalia Pinilla‐Echeverri, David Wood, Roxana Mehran, Robert F. Storey, Laurent J. Feldman, Raúl Moreno, Sunil V. Rao, Warren J. Cantor, Robert C. Welsh, Kevin R. Bainey, Eric A. Cohen, Michael B. Tsang, Matthew Sibbald, Madhu K. Natarajan, Dilani Wijesena, Thenmozhi Mani, Helen Nguyen, John A. Cairns, Shamir R. Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueEuroIntervention · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaSouthlake Regional Health CenterUniversity of AlbertaPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-hoc analysisMyocardial infarctionVentricular functionEjection fractionPost hocRevascularizationRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COMPLETE trial demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular (CV) death or new myocardial infarction (MI) after complete, rather than culprit-only, revascularisation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, it is unknown whether this benefit varies according to baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). AIMS: We aimed to determine the effects of complete versus culprit-only revascularisation according to LVEF. METHODS: Baseline LVEF was available for 2,214 of 4,041 randomised patients. The effect of both strategies on the first co-primary outcome of CV death or new MI and the second co-primary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischaemia-driven revascularisation (IDR) was determined within the prespecified LVEF ranges of <45% (N=660) and ≥45% (N=1,554). An analysis of clinical outcomes by LVEF according to thirds was also conducted. RESULTS: Patients with LVEF <45% experienced a significantly higher incidence of the first co-primary outcome compared with those with LVEF ≥45% (4.2%/year vs 2.8%/year; hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.98; p=0.003). Compared with a culprit-only strategy, complete revascularisation consistently reduced the first co-primary outcome in patients with LVEF <45% (3.0%/year vs 5.5%/year; HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36-0.86) and those with LVEF ≥45% (2.4%/year vs 3.2%/year; HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.52-1.04; interaction p=0.31). Complete revascularisation also consistently reduced the second co-primary outcome in patients with LVEF <45% (3.5%/year vs 7.3%/year; HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.33-0.74) and those with LVEF ≥45% (2.7%/year vs 6.3%/year; HR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.33-0.60; interaction p=0.67). Consistent results were observed for both co-primary outcomes when LVEF was further stratified into categories of LVEF ≤35%, 36-49% and ≥50%. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with STEMI and MVD, those with reduced LVEF are at higher risk of ischaemic events than patients with preserved LVEF. There is a consistent benefit of complete revascularisation regardless of baseline LVEF.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuroInterventionSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207