MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017283216 · doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.01.026

Transit-time flow predicts outcomes in coronary artery bypass graft patients: a series of 1000 consecutive arterial grafts☆

2010· article· en· W2017283216 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa M. Kieser, Sarah Rose, Ryszard Kowalewski, Israel Belenkie

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyArterySeries (stratigraphy)Internal medicineSurgeryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate transit-time flow (TTF) as a tool to detect technical errors in arterial bypass grafts intra-operatively and predict outcomes. METHODS: TTF's three parameters, pulsatility index (PI, index of resistance), flow (cc min(-1)) and diastolic filling (DF, proportion of diastole with coronary flow), were measured in 990/1000 (99%) of arterial grafts in 336 consecutive patients, prospectively enrolled in a database. Grafts were revised when TTF findings supported the otherwise suspected graft malfunction. If no other signs/suspicion of graft malfunction existed (normal electrocardiogram (EKG), stable haemodynamics and unchanged ventricular function on trans-oesophageal echocardiography (TEE)), and the PI was >5, grafts were not revised. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs: recurrent angina, perioperative myocardial infarction, postoperative angioplasty, re-operation and/or perioperative death) were related to TTF measurements. RESULTS: The average number of grafts per patient was 3.02, of which 99% were arterial. Satisfactory grafts were achieved in 916/990 (93%) of the grafts, with flows from 34 to 61 cc min(-1), PI < or =5 and DF of 62-85%. Fourteen conduits, 20 grafts (2%) suspected to be problematic, were revised. Patients were divided into two groups: 277 (82%) with at least one graft with PI < or =5 and 59 (18%) with a PI >5. MACE occurred in 25 (7.4%) patients--15/277 patients with a PI < or =5 (5.4%) and 10/59 with a PI >5 (17%, p=0.005). Mortality following non-emergent surgery was significantly higher in patients with a PI >5 (5/54, 9%) than in patients with a PI < or =5 (5/250, 2%, p=0.02). Flow and DF were not predictive of outcomes. CONCLUSION: A high PI predicts technically inadequate arterial grafts during surgery--even if all other intra-operative assessments indicate good grafts; it also predicts outcomes, particularly mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations151
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207