Randomized trial comparing off-pump to on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The subset of patients most likely to benefit from off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains a controversial issue, but the technique has been proposed to decrease postoperative mortality and morbidity. Th e objective of this study was to compare off-pump to onpump CABG in patients with known risk factors for mortality and morbidity. METHODS: Between October 2001 and September 2002, 65 high-risk patients were prospectively randomized to undergo off-pump or o n-pump CABG. Recruited patients had at least 3 of the following criteria: age greater than 65 years, high blood pressure, diabetes, serum creatinine greater than 133 mol/L, left ventricular ejection fraction lower than 45%, chronic pulmonary diseas e, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, repeat CABG, anemia, and carotid atherosclerosis. Hospital mortality and morbidity were the primary end-points of the study. RESULTS: Six patients (9%) crossed over from the original randomized group. Twenty-eight patients averaging 70 +/- 8 years of age underwent 3 +/- 1 grafts off pump, and 37 patients averaging 70 +/- 6 years of age underwent 3.4 +/- 1 grafts on pump. Revascularization was considered complete in 21 (7 5 %) of off-pump patients compared to 33 (89%) of onpump patients (P =.1). There were no hospital deaths in off-pump patients, and 2 patients (5%) undergoing onpump CABG died early following surgery (P =.2). Two offpump (7%) compared to 11 on-pump (30%) of patients presented composite end-points including death, neurological injury, renal failure, respiratory failure, and operative myocardial infarction after CABG (P =.02). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that off-pump CABG, when technically feasible, significantly reduces morbidity following surgery in a group of high-risk patients.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".