The cardiac implications of breast reconstruction using the internal mammary artery as the recipient vessel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microsurgical breast reconstruction is a popular choice in breast reconstruction. Recipient vessel use for these autologous tissue reconstructions has shifted from the thoracodorsal to the internal mammary vessels. Coronary artery bypass (CAB) surgery remains the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with significant, diffuse coronary artery disease. The conduits of choice for coronary revascularization are the internal mammary arteries (IMA) because of their superior long-term graft patency rate and improved patient survival. OBJECTIVE: To review the cardiac risk factors in the breast reconstruction population, and to report the incidence of postoperative cardiac events at the London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario. The authors present the index cases illustrating cardiac complications following the use of internal mammary vessels. METHOD: A retrospective, single-centre, cumulative audit of breast reconstruction practice from 2005 to 2009 was conducted. A total of 81 patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction were reviewed. Two women were noted to have experienced postoperative myocardial infarction requiring intervention. Both were noted to have triple-vessel disease, an indication for CAB; however, during the breast reconstruction, their IMAs had been utilized. As a result, both women subsequently underwent triple-vesssel percutaneous intervention, with one woman later requiring CAB without IMA because of recurrent ischemia. CONCLUSION: While there is limited overlap with the breast reconstruction and cardiac disease population, there can be significant cardiac health implications in the postoperative status (both short and long term) of women undergoing autologous breast reconstruction using the IMAs as recipient vessels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".