Coronary artery bypass surgery with heparin-coated perfusion circuits and low-dose heparinization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of heparin-coated perfusion circuits with low-dose heparinization and centrifugal pumping compared with the standard method during coronary artery bypass grafting. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial. SETTING: A primary care institution. PATIENTS: Ninety patients who underwent first-time elective coronary artery bypass grafting were eligible for the study. After giving informed consent, they were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups (30/group). INTERVENTIONS: Perfusion on regular uncoated bypass equipment with a roller pump and full-dose heparinization (300 IU/kg bolus, activated clotting time [ACT] > 400 s) (group 1), on a heparin-coated oxygenator with a centrifugal pump and full-dose heparinization (group 2) and on fully heparin-coated bypass equipment with a centrifugal pump and low-dose heparinization (100 IU/kg bolus, ACT of 180-400 s) (group 3). Standard coronary artery bypass grafting was performed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative bleeding, transfusion requirements and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There were no complications related to the study protocol. Study groups were similar in terms of postoperative bleeding, transfusion requirements and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Heparin-coated cardiopulmonary bypass with low-dose heparinization and centrifugal pumping is a safe practice but showed no advantages over the use of regular uncoated bypass circuits for coronary bypass surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".