Operative Myocardial protection in patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The Role of systemic Hypothermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Myocardial hypertrophy represents a great challenge in cardiac surgery. Several strategies have been described to protect the hypertrophied myocardium during cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic clamping, yet the ideal strategy has not been identified. This study investigates the use of moderate systemic hypothermia (MSH) as an adjuvant method to protect the hypertrophied myocardium in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: Twenty eight patients undergoing AVR were divided into two groups, (Group I) received continuous cold 5-8 °C retrograde blood cardioplegia (CRBC) and their body temperature was cooled down to 23-26 °C. (Group II) also received CRBC but their body temperature was kept at 32-34 °C. RESULTS: No operative morality (30 days) was noted in both groups. Postoperative reduction in ejection fraction (EF) was seen in nine patients of group I and in twelve patients of group II (P < 0.05). The need for multiple inotropes was more in group II (eight patients) than in group I (two patients) (P < 0.001). IABP was needed in three patients of group II and non in group I (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Moderate systemic hypothermia might have a role in protecting hypertrophied myocardium in patients undergoing AVR.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".