Thoracoscopic Transmyocardial Laser Revascularization: Is Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting a Contraindication?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : Recently, thoracoscopic techniques have been used to perform transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMR) in patients who are not suitable candidates for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary interventions. Whether or not prior CABG contraindicates a port access-only approach to TMR is unclear. This study compares patients with and without prior CABG who have undergone thoracoscopic TMR. METHODS: : Between May 2003 and October 2005, 23 consecutive patients (6 without prior CABG, group A; and 17 with prior CABG, group B) underwent thoracoscopic TMR, using a holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser system. Either 3 or 4 port incisions (each ≤2 cm in length) were used, depending on the patient's anatomy. Procedural success was defined as the ability to create all intended channels without conversion to thoracotomy. RESULTS: : Patient demographics were not significantly different between group A and group B (mean age, 65.8 ± 4.3 years versus 67.4 ± 2.4 years, Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class 3.7 ± 0.2 versus 3.9 ± 0.1, and Parsonnet score 12.0 ± 3.2 versus 20.5 ± 2.4). Fourteen (82.4%) group B patients had a prior left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft, of which 12 (85.7%) were patent. One patient in group A had an airway injury at intubation that led to an extended hospital stay of 30 days. One patient in group A (16.7%) and one patient in group B (5.9%) required a blood transfusion (P = NS). Adhesion lysis time in group B ranged from 0 to 68 minutes (mean, 27 ± 5.6 minutes). Neither group had a conversion to thoracotomy or any deaths through a mean combined follow-up of 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: : A port access approach is safe and reproducible for patients who are candidates for sole therapy TMR. Prior CABG, including patent grafts, is not a contraindication to thoracoscopic TMR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".