Redo coronary artery bypass grafting with and without cardiopulmonary bypass in the elderly.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Morbidity and mortality rates rise with increasing age in patients undergoing conventional redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to compare our experience of minimal tissue dissection and target vessel revascularization without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with the standard procedure of total dissection of the heart and complete revascularization with CPB for a population of elderly patients undergoing elective redo coronary artery CABG. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed morbidity, mortality, and functional status of 47 patients older than 75 years who underwent redo CABG between January 1995 and June 2002. Thirty-one patients underwent redo CABG with CPB, and 16 patients underwent redo CABG without CPB. Follow-up end points were defined by patient survival, freedom from recurrence of angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society [CCS] score), freedom from rehospitalizations and reinterventions, and the need for antianginal medication. RESULTS: There were 2 perioperative deaths (2 in the CPB group versus 0 in the group without CPB; P =.151). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 3 patients (3 in the CPB group versus 0 in the group without CPB; P =.082). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 5 patients (5 in the CPB group versus 0 in the group without CPB; P =.058). At the time of follow-up, the mean CCS score of patients who underwent redo CABG with CPB was 1.5 +/- 0.8 and was 1.6 +/- 0.7 for patients who underwent redo CABG without CPB (P =.432). The rates of angina recurrence (16% with CPB versus 13.3% without CPB; P =.243), use of nitrates (8.7% with CPB versus 14.3% without CPB; P =.542), and survival (89% with CPB versus 93% without CPB; P =.238) were very comparable for the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this high-risk subgroup of patients, those patients who underwent target vessel revascularization without CPB showed a trend toward a lower rate of major adverse cardiac events, and this procedure seems promising with regard to long-term outcome. Therefore, target vessel revascularization may be offered liberally to elderly patients who are at high risk in surgeries involving complete revascularization with CPB. Further studies are needed to elucidate the long-term outcome of target vessel revascularization for elderly patients undergoing redo CABG.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".