MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Perioperative Cardiac Medical Therapy Among Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

2008· article· en· W1967318252 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian B. Filion, Louise Pilote, Elham Rahme, Mark J. Eisenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinPerioperativeCardiac surgeryCoronary artery bypass surgeryArterySurgeryInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that cardiac medical therapy is associated with improved clinical outcomes in noncardiac surgery. However, the use of these agents among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) remains poorly understood. METHODS: We described the in-hospital medication use among 2,389 consecutive patients who underwent CABG at three North American hospitals. Demographic, clinical, and medication use information was extracted from resource and cost accounting systems at each hospital. We examined use of aspirin, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta blockers, and statins during the following seven in-hospital periods: admission, presurgery, the day before surgery, the day of surgery, the day after surgery, postsurgery, and discharge. RESULTS: Medication use throughout hospitalization was low among patients undergoing CABG. Use of ACE inhibitors and statins on the day of surgery was <10%, while aspirin and beta blocker use on the day of surgery was 43.0% and 42.9%, respectively. The use of cardiac medical therapy at hospital discharge was also low (ACE inhibitors: 23.0%; aspirin: 74.9%; beta blockers: 58.9%; and statins: 28.2%). The use of cardiac medical therapy at discharge appeared to increase over time. CONCLUSION: In-hospital cardiac medical therapies are underused among patients undergoing CABG. This is particularly true at discharge, where the benefits of these agents for secondary prevention are well established.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiac SurgerySame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207