Effect of Off‐Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Risk‐Adjusted and Cumulative Sum Failure Outcomes After Coronary Artery Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: We have shown that cumulative sum (CUSUM) failure analysis may be more sensitive than standard statistical methods in detecting a cluster of adverse patient outcomes after cardiac surgical procedures. We therefore applied CUSUM, as well as standard statistical techniques, to analyze a surgeon's experience with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) and on-pump procedures to determine whether the two techniques have similar or different outcomes. METHODS: In 320 patients undergoing nonemergent, first time coronary artery bypass grafting, preoperative patient characteristics, rates of mortality and major complications, and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were compared between the on-pump and OPCAB cohorts using Fisher's exact tests and Wilcoxon two sample tests. Predicted mortality and length of stay were determined using previously validated models of the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario. Observed versus expected ratios of both variables were calculated for the two types of procedures. Furthermore, CUSUM curves were constructed for the on-pump and OPCAB cohorts. A multivariable analysis of the predictors of hospital length of stay was also performed to determine whether the type of coronary artery bypass procedure had an independent impact on this variable. RESULTS: The predicted mortality risk and predicted hospital length of stay were almost identical in the 208 on-pump patients (2.2 +/- 3.9%; 8.2 +/- 2.5 days) and the 112 OPCAB patients (2.0 +/- 2.2%; 7.8 +/- 2.1 days). The incidence of hospital mortality and postoperative stroke were 2.9% and 2.4% in on-pump patients versus zero in OPCAB patients (p = 0.09 and 0.17, respectively). Mechanical ventilation for greater than 48 hours was significantly less common in OPCAB (1.8%) than in on-pump patients (7.7%, p = 0.04). The rate of 10 major complications was 14.9% in on-pump versus 8.0% in OPCAB patients (p = 0.08). OPCAB patients experienced a hospital length of stay that was a median of 1.0 day shorter than on-pump patients (p = 0.01). The observed versus expected ratio for length of stay was 0.78 in OPCAB patients versus 0.95 in on-pump patients. On CUSUM analysis, the failure curve in OPCAB patients was negative and was flatter than that of on-pump patients throughout the duration of the study. Furthermore, OPCAB was an independent predictor of a reduced hospital length of stay on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: OPCAB was associated with better outcomes than on-pump coronary artery bypass despite a similar predicted risk. This robust finding was documented on sensitive CUSUM analysis, using standard statistical techniques and on a multivariable analysis of the independent predictors of hospital length of stay.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".