The Impact of Diabetic Status on Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite worse outcomes in diabetics after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, studies have not examined graft patency in this high-risk group. This study examined the impact of diabetes on graft patency, 1-year postcoronary artery bypass grafting, using data from a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Radial Artery Patency Study enrolled 561 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, comparing graft patency of the saphenous vein (SV) versus radial artery 1-year postcoronary artery bypass grafting. Angiographic follow-up was acquired for 440 patients (115 diabetics, 325 nondiabetics), each with a study radial artery and a control SV graft. Preoperative characteristics were similar. The proportion of small-sized target vessels was greater in diabetics (P=0.04). At 1 year, 33 of 230 study grafts (14.4%) were occluded in the diabetics versus 63 of 650 (9.7%) in the nondiabetics (P=0.052). Multivariable regression found diabetes to be a significant independent predictor of 1-year graft occlusion (relative risk, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.05; P=0.03) along with female gender, SV conduit, and small target-vessel size. A significantly higher proportion of SV grafts were occluded in the diabetics (19% versus 12%, P=0.04). Radial artery grafting was protective in the diabetic cohort (radial artery: 11 of 115 occluded [9.5%] versus SV: 22 of 115 occluded [19.1%], McNemar corrected P=0.05; relative risk, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.01) and nondiabetics (radial artery: 25 of 325 occluded [7.7%] versus SV: 38 of 325 occluded [11.7%], McNemar corrected P=0.11; relative risk, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary artery bypass grafting occlusions were more common among diabetics versus nondiabetics at 1-year angiography, mainly because of more frequent SV graft failure in diabetics. Radial artery, compared with SV grafting, is protective in both diabetic and nondiabetic 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".