Intramyocardial partial oxygen pressure in patients undergoing transmyocardial laser revascularization and bypass surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Numerous investigations could not clarify the exact mechanism of transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMLR). The aim of this study was to investigate, whether TMLR leads to an increase of myocardial oxygenation in comparison to patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). DESIGN: Twelve patients (TMLR group) underwent TMLR alone with an 800 W CO2 laser through a left anterior thoracotomy. Seventeen patients (CABG group) underwent standard CABG. Myocardial oxygenation was determined by measuring intramyocardial partial oxygen pressure (ptiO2 ). PtiO2 was measured online and mean values at 1, 24, 32, and 48 h postoperatively were compared with baseline before intervention. Parameters influencing ptiO2 (arterial pO2, hemodynamic parameters, hemoglobin) were recorded. RESULTS: Mean baseline ptiO2 was significantly lower in the TMLR group compared with the CABG group (p < 0.05). In both groups ptiO2 increased significantly in the postoperative course, whereby ptiO2 in the TMLR group was significantly lower compared with the CABG group. CONCLUSION: Although the exact mechanism of action of TMLR remains unclear, ptiO2 and thus oxygen supply in the myocardium increased in patients undergoing TMLR at least in the early postoperative course. However, ptiO2 increased to a lesser extent compared with CABG.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".