Reply to Kopjar et al.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We thank Kopjar et al. [1] for their comments regarding our recent work published in Eur J Cardiothorac Surg [2]. We reported attenuated vascular smooth muscle cell activation via microRNA-145 as a possible pathogenetic mechanism for the clinical observation of improved vein graft patency using the no-touch (NT) approach. Kopjar et al. [1] focused on a critical aspect of a ‘NT’ vein harvest that has been a major barrier to wide-spread adoption, which being the morbidity of the leg incision. We have read their comments and offer our responses. In this report, our patient numbers were too small to make any definitive conclusions regarding clinical leg wound morbidity. To address this important issue, we direct Kopjar et al. to our ongoing prospective, multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial comparing conventional (CON) saphenous vein graft (SVG) harvest versus the no-touch technique (SUPERIOR SVG Study; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01047449). The primary outcome of the SUPERIOR SVG Study is 1-year graft occlusion; the secondary outcomes include adverse SVG harvesting events at 1 year post-coronary artery bypass graft, which include infection, haematoma, swelling, neuropathy and quality-of-life measures. In this report, we found worse short-term leg assessment scores in NT versus CON at 3 months as well as more incidences of infection (4 vs 0 patients). However, as the authors have pointed out that, at 1 year, such scores were not different between groups. Our data does suggest that, in our patient population, although NT vein harvest was associated with acute morbidity, there may not be associated long-term functional consequences. As for the method of leg closure, all leg incisions were sutured closed with two layers of subcutaneous 2-0 Vicryl (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) sutures and a single 3-0 monocryl subcuticular layer. Anti-microbial sutures may minimize leg wound harvest-site infections, but were not used in these patients. In this report, all patients were included in the leg assessment study, including the one patient with preoperative peripheral vascular disease, which was not considered severe and without observable chronic skin changes. We do advocate that lower leg harvesting be avoided and thigh saphenous vein segments used for patients with more significant peripheral arterial insufficiency. We also agree that it remains to be seen whether gender will come to be an independent risk factor for infection. The Materials and Methods section points to Supplementary data, which includes the leg wound healing and functional outcomes questionnaire. This can now be accessed on the Eur J Cardiothorac Surg website. Finally, although the representative micrographs of SVG H&E staining (Figure 1) do not show statistical differences in intima, media and adventitial thickness between the two groups, there was an observed trend in the thickness of intima, media and adventitia between the NT and CON specimens (mean ± SD: 132.72 ± 42.02 vs 112.46 ± 44.18; 217.76 ± 48.73 vs 202.32 ± 45.53, and 146.19 ± 43.39 vs 132.38 ± 28.34, respectively). Finally, there was a single crossover; a CON SVG was harvested from the leg assigned to NT that developed a leg wound infection and analysed according to intention to treat. We did not perform the as-treated analysis nor would this change the outcome of the analysis. In addition, we thank Kopjar, et al. [1] for their interest in our paper and for raising these important points. Unfortunately, this report was not designed nor able to address many of the issues raised. As Kopjar et al. point out, the SUPERIOR SVG study will address these concerns.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,034 | 0,048 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».