{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038753159224936815, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030328559393428812, 'mean_word_length': 5.387096774193548, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Correction: Outcomes in Patients with Acute Non-Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction Randomly Assigned to an Invasive as Compared with a Conservative Management Strategy.

Background Non–Q-wave myocardial infarction is usually managed according to an “invasive” strategy (i.e., one of routine coronary angiography followed by myocardial revascularization). Methods We randomly assigned 920 patients to either “invasive” management (462 patients) or “conservative” management, defined as medical therapy and noninvasive testing, with subsequent invasive management if indicated by the development of spontaneous or inducible ischemia (458 patients), within 72 hours of the onset of a non–Q-wave infarction. Death or nonfatal infarction made up the combined primary end point. Results During an average follow-up of 23 months, 152 events (80 deaths and 72 nonfatal infarctions) occurred in 138 patients who had been randomly assigned to the invasive strategy, and 139 events (59 deaths and 80 nonfatal infarctions) in 123 patients assigned to the conservative strategy (P=0.35). Patients assigned to the invasive strategy had worse clinical outcomes during the first year of follow-up. The numb...