Why Is Off-Pump Coronary Surgery Uncommon in Canada? Results of a Population-Based Survey of Canadian Heart Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) is proposed to improve clinical outcomes and decrease resource use. However, off-pump surgery is not widely used in Canada. The purpose of this study was to determine the current use of OPCAB in Canada and determine why surgeons have not adopted this technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study was a population-based survey of all adult Canadian cardiac surgeons in practice >1 year. Eligible division heads and surgeons were contacted by mail. Of 19 806 isolated coronary bypass surgeries performed by respondents in Canada last year, 3164 (16.0%) were performed off-pump. More than 50% of Canadian surgeons performed OPCAB in <5% of coronary cases, and only 17% of surgeons performed OPCAB in >25% of coronary cases. Only 4 responding centers performed OPCAB in >25% of cases. Respondents were divided into those who performed <5% of cases off-pump (nonadopters), 5% to 25% off-pump (intermediate users), or >25% off-pump (enthusiasts). Mean number of distal anastomoses in off-pump cases were 1.7+/-0.6, 1.6+/-0.6, and 3.3+/-0.5 for nonadopters, intermediate users, and enthusiasts, respectively (P=0.001). Eleven percent of nonadopters, 55% of intermediate users, and 81% of enthusiasts believed OPCAB improved clinical outcomes (P<0.0001). Only 23% of all respondents felt OPCAB use would increase in the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns regarding incomplete revascularization and lack of proven clinical benefit have limited OPCAB to being performed routinely by only a small number of surgeons in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".