Does more than a single chest tube for mediastinal drainage affect outcomes after cardiac surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of 1 or more mediastinal chest tubes has traditionally been routine for all cardiac surgery procedures to deal with bleeding. However, it remains unproven whether multiple chest tubes offer a benefit over a single chest tube. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery (2005-2010) received at least 1 chest tube at the time of surgery based on surgeon preference. Patients were grouped into those receiving a single chest tube (SCT) and those receiving multiple chest tubes (MCT). The primary outcome was return to the operating room for bleeding or tamponade. RESULTS: A total of 5698 consecutive patients were assigned to 2 groups: 3045 to the SCT and 2653 to the MCT group. Patients in the SCT group were older, more often female and less likely to undergo isolated coronary artery bypass graft than those in the MCT group. Unadjusted outcomes for SCT and MCT, respectively, were return to the operating room for bleeding or tamponade (4.7% v. 5.0%; p = 0.50), intensive care unit stay longer than 48 hours (25.5% v. 27.9%; p = 0.041, postoperative stay > 9 days (31.5% v. 33.1%; p = 0.20) and mortality (3.8% v. 4.6%; p = 0.16). Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for clinical differences between groups, showed that the number of chest tubes was not associated with return to the operating room for bleeding or tamponade. CONCLUSION: The use of multiple mediastinal chest tubes after cardiac surgery confers no advantage over a single chest tube in preventing return to the operating room for bleeding or tamponade.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".