On-pump beating-heart versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting for revascularization in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction: early outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the effects of on-pump beating-heart versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting techniques requiring cardioplegic arrest in patients with coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction. METHODS: We report the early outcomes associated with survival, morbidity and improvement of left ventricular function in patients with low ejection fraction who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting between August 2009 and June 2012. Patients were separated into 2 groups: group I underwent conventional coronary artery bypass grafting and group II underwent an on-pump beating-heart technique without cardioplegic arrest. RESULTS: In all, 131 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting: 66 in group I and 65 in group II. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 26.6% ± 3.5% in group I and 27.7% ± 4.7% in group II. Left ventricular end diastolic diameter was 65.6 ± 3.6 mm in group I and 64.1 ± 3.2 mm in group II. There was a significant reduction in mortality in the conventional and on-pump beating-heart groups (p < 0.001). Perioperative myocardial infarction and low cardiac output syndrome were higher in group I than group II (both p < 0.05). Improvement of left ventricular function after the surgical procedure was better in group II than group I. CONCLUSION: The on-pump beating-heart technique is the preferred method for myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. This technique may be an acceptable alternative to the conventional technique owing to lower postoperative mortality and morbidity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".