The Effect of Insulin Cardioplegia on Atrial Fibrillation After High-Risk Coronary Bypass Surgery: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Atrial fibrillation after coronary bypass (CABG) surgery is an important cause of morbidity and increased resource utilization. Insulin-enhanced cardioplegia may reduce postoperative arrhythmias by improving aerobic myocardial metabolism and mitigating the deleterious effects of ischemia. We performed a double-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial to determine if insulin-enhanced cardioplegia decreases the risk of post-CABG atrial fibrillation in a high-risk patient population. We randomized 501 patients undergoing urgent CABG to receive insulin-enhanced (Humulin R 10 IU/L, Insulin group, n = 243) or standard (Control group, n = 258) blood cardioplegia during cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were monitored by using continuous electrocardiography for a minimum of 3 days postoperatively. All standard cardiac medications, including beta-adrenergic blockers, were continued postoperatively. Insulin-enhanced cardioplegia did not result in a significant reduction in postoperative atrial fibrillation. Furthermore, we failed to detect a difference in the incidence of conduction defects, ventricular tachycardia, or pacemaker requirements between insulin and placebo patients. Atrial fibrillation was the most common arrhythmia, occurring in 31% of all patients. Independent predictors of atrial fibrillation were elderly age, preoperative atrial fibrillation, and renal insufficiency. Right bundle branch block was the most common conduction abnormality. Predictors of right bundle branch block were elderly age, female sex, and circumflex coronary artery disease. The incidence of postoperative ventricular tachycardia, left bundle branch block, and permanent pacemaker requirement was small. We conclude that insulin-enhanced cardioplegia does not reduce the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation in high-risk CABG patients. IMPLICATIONS: We conducted a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of insulin-enhanced cardioplegia in 501 patients undergoing urgent coronary bypass surgery. Insulin did not decrease the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation when compared with placebo. We also failed to demonstrate a difference in the incidence of other postoperative arrhythmias between the two groups of 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".