Outcome after redo coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and viable myocardium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repeat coronary artery bypass grafting (redo-CABG) in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy is associated with high perioperative risk and worse long-term outcome compared with patients undergoing their first CABG. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients with viable myocardium undergoing redo-CABG have a better outcome. METHODS: 18 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy underwent redo-CABG and 34 underwent their first CABG; all had substantial viability (> or =25% of the left ventricle) on dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure symptoms were assessed before and 9-12 months after revascularisation. Cardiac event rate was assessed during the follow-up period (median 4 years, 25-75th centile 2.8-4.9 years). RESULTS: The extent of viable myocardium on DSE was comparable in the two groups (11.3 (3.9) segments in patients who underwent redo-CABG v 12.8 (3.0) in patients who underwent their first CABG; p = NS). LVEF improved from 32% (9%) to 39% (12%); p = 0.01, in patients who underwent redo-CABG and from 30% (7%) to 36% (7%); p<0.01, in those who underwent their first CABG; New York Heart Association class improved from 2.5 (1.1) to 1.9 (0.8); p = 0.03, and from 2.7 (1.0) to 1.8 (0.70); p<0.01, respectively. In patients who underwent redo-CABG, the perioperative mortality was 0, post-surgery inotropic support was needed in 11% of the patients and mid-term (4-year) survival was 100%, with a total event rate of 28%. All these variables were not statistically different from patients who underwent their first CABG (p = 0.50, 0.90, 0.08 and 0.81, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and substantial viability undergoing redo-CABG benefit from revascularisation in terms of improvement in LVEF, heart failure symptoms, angina and mid-term prognosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".