Endoscopic Vascular Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Consensus Statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This purpose of this consensus statement was to compare endoscopic vascular graft harvesting (EVH) with conventional open vascular harvesting (OVH) in adults undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and to determine which resulted in improved clinical and resource outcomes. Methods Before the consensus conference, the consensus panel reviewed the best available evidence, whereby systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized trials were considered in descending order of importance. Evidence-based statements were created, and consensus processes were used to determine the ensuing statements. The AHA/ACC system was used to label the level of evidence and class of recommendation. Results The consensus panel agreed upon the following statements: 1. EVH is recommended to reduce wound related complications when compared with OVH (Class I, Level A). 2. Based on quality of conduit harvested, either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used (Class IIa; Level B). 3. Based on major adverse cardiac events and angiographic patency at 6 months, either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used (Class IIa; Level A). 4. EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to improve patient satisfaction and postoperative pain when compared with OVH in CABG surgery (Class I, Level A). 5. EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to reduce postoperative length of stay and outpatient wound management resources (Class I, Level A). Conclusions Given these evidence-based statements, the consensus panel stated that EVH should be the standard of care for patients who require saphenous vein grafts for coronary revascularization (Class I, Level B). Future research should address long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and endoarterial harvest.
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 | 0.087 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".