Abstract 986: Hematomas of at Least 5 Cm and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From The STEEPLE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), bleeding has a significant impact on outcomes including 1-year mortality. There is no uniform definition of bleeding and hematomas ≥ 5 cm at the femoral puncture are considered major bleeding events in some trials. In the STEEPLE trial groin hematomas ≥ 5 cm (excluding retroperitoneal bleeds) were classified as minor bleeds. This subanalysis of the STEEPLE trial assessed the impact of hematomas on patient outcomes and 1-year mortality. Methods: In STEEPLE, 3528 patients undergoing elective PCI received intravenous enoxaparin (enox; 0.5 or 0.75 mg/kg) or unfractionated heparin (UFH). Bleeding sites and size of haematomas were collected. The 30-day outcomes and 1-year mortality of patients with a hematoma ≥ 5 cm were compared to outcomes in patients with no major or minor bleeding. Results: Data on hematomas were available for 3342 patients. Of these, 103 patients (29, 33, 41 in enox 0.5, 0.75 and UFH groups, respectively) had a hematoma ≥ 5 cm; none required transfusion. The 30-day mortality rate, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or urgent target-vessel revascularization (UTVR) were similar between patients with a hematoma ≥ 5 cm and those with no bleeding. All-cause mortality was similar in both groups (Table ). Conclusion: The presence of hematomas ≥ 5 cm had no effect on the 30-day ischemic outcomes and 1-year mortality in patients undergoing elective PCI in the STEEPLE trial. Beyond patient discomfort, hematomas ≥ 5 cm were not associated with need for transfusions, and had no effect on prognosis in this analysis. It remains to be determined how to use them in bleeding classifications.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".