ESC quality indicators for post-myocardial infarction care: transition and chronic coronary syndrome phases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We aimed to develop the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) quality indicators (QIs) for myocardial infarction (MI), from 1 year after hospital discharge, corresponding to transition to the chronic coronary syndrome phases. METHODS AND RESULTS: We collaborated with the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) and developed QIs for the long-term management of patients following MI. We applied the ESC methodology for QI development by (i) determining key domains of post-MI care; (ii) developing candidate QIs by performing a systematic review of the literature, and (iii) selecting the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi approach. In total, 18 QIs were identified across seven domains of care including (i) structural framework, (ii) risk assessment and follow-up, (iii) pharmacological management, (iv) rehabilitation, behavioural, and preventive interventions, (v) coronary revascularization, (vi) clinical outcomes, and (vii) patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: We present the ESC QIs from 1 year after hospitalization for MI, to standardize and address gaps in care for this high-risk group. These QIs are supported by evidence from contemporary literature, endorsed by expert consensus, and aligned with the 2024 ESC guidelines on the management of chronic coronary syndromes. LAY SUMMARY: Measures to evaluate and improve the long-term management of patients following a heart attack are needed. In this paper, we identified key aspects of care that can help clinicians, decision-makers and patients improve the quality of care, from one year after a heart attack onwards, and help address inequalities and variations in clinical practice.
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 | 0.051 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".