Transatlantic analysis of patient profiles and mid-term survival after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: a head-to-head comparison between the European DuraGraft Registry and the US STS Registry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Although cardiovascular surgery societies in Europe and the USA constantly strive for the exchange of knowledge and best practices in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the available evidence on whether such efforts result in similar patient outcomes is limited. Therefore, in the present analysis, we sought to compare patient profiles and overall survival outcomes for up to 3 years between large European and US patient cohorts who underwent isolated CABG. Methods Patients from the European DuraGraft Registry (n = 2,522) who underwent isolated CABG at 45 sites in eight different European countries between 2016 and 2019 were compared to randomly selected patients from the US STS database who were operated during the same period (n = 294,725). Free conduits (venous and arterial grafts) from the DuraGraft Registry patients were intraoperatively stored in DuraGraft, an endothelial damage inhibitor, before anastomosis, whereas grafts from the STS Registry patients in standard-of-care solutions (e.g., saline). Propensity score matching (PSM) models were used to account for differences in patient baseline and surgical characteristics, using a primary PSM with 35 variables (2,400 patients matched) and a secondary PSM with 25 variables (2,522 patients matched, sensitivity analysis). The overall survival for up to 3 years after CABG was assessed as the primary endpoint. Results The comparison of patient profiles showed significant differences between the European and US cohorts. The European patients had more left main disease, underwent more off-pump CABG, and received more arterial grafts together with more complete arterial grafting procedures. In contrast, the US patients received more distal anastomoses with more saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) that were mainly harvested endoscopically. Such differences, however, were well balanced after PSM for the mortality comparison. Mortality comparison at 30 days, 12 months, and 24 months between the European and US patients was 2.38% vs. 1.96%, 4.32% vs. 4.79%, and 5.38% vs. 6.96%, respectively. At 36 months, the mortality was significantly lower in the European patients than that of their US counterparts (7.37% vs. 9.65%; p-value = 0.016). The estimated hazard ratio (HR) was 1.29 (95% CI 1.05–1.59). Conclusion This large-scale transatlantic comparative analysis shows that there are some significant differences in patient profiles between large cohorts of European and US patients. These differences were adjusted by using PSM for the mortality analysis. No significant difference in mortality was detected between groups through 2 years, but survival was significantly better in the European DuraGraft Registry patients at 3 years post-CABG.
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 | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 ».