Improved patient outcomes when transmyocardial revascularization is used as adjunctive revascularization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transmyocardial revascularization (TMR) has been recently used to treat patients with angina for whom angioplasty/stenting and/or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is no longer an option. METHODS: A retrospective review of 255 consecutive patients who required CABG was done. Group 1 patients (n = 219) underwent complete revascularization with CABG alone. Group 2 patients (n = 36) received CABG plus TMR. TMR was performed in regions of nongraftable coronary targets. Indications for surgery in both groups were Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina scores III or IV and an ejection fraction > or = 30%. Exclusion criteria were an emergency procedure within 12 hours, unstable angina, or an acute myocardial infarction within 72 hours. Thirty-day outcomes of the two groups were compared. The means +/- SD of patient ages (63.3 +/- 1.6 years versus 65.4 +/- 1.4 years) and ejection fractions (51.6% +/- 0.9% versus 48.5% +/- 1.6%) were similar for the two groups. RESULTS: The number of grafts performed and operating room times for the two groups were similar (3.1 +/- 0.1 versus 2.9 +/- 0.1 and 276.7 +/- 4.4 minutes versus 272.3 +/- 10.7 minutes, respectively). Intensive care unit times and lengths of stay (emergency room to discharge) were significantly shorter in the CABG plus TMR group (2.1 +/- 0.2 days versus 1.6 +/- 0.2 days [P < .001] and 8.2 +/- 0.4 days versus 7.1 +/-0.6 days [P < .001], respectively). The 30-day readmission rate was lower in the CABG plus TMR group (7.8% versus 2.8%; P < .5). The frequency of atrial fibrillation was also significantly lower in the CABG plus TMR group (37.4% versus 16.7%; P < .025). Major adverse outcomes, such as reoperation for bleeding, respiratory failure, renal failure, stroke, and mortality were similar in the two groups, although there were no mortalities in the CABG plus TMR group. CONCLUSION: TMR as an adjunctive revascularization to CABG in selected patients with limited options may improve in-hospital outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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".