MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18664: Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure is a Predictor of Survival in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery with Left Ventricular Dysfunction

2012· article· en· W205231456 on OpenAlexaff
Jeevan Nagendran, Colleen M. Norris, Jehangir J. Appoo, David B. Ross, Jayan Nagendran

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery bypass surgeryDiastoleArteryBypass surgeryBlood pressureSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an association between depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (ejection fraction < 35%; LVEF) and increased mortality in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). There are a few studies suggesting that elevated pre-operative left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) is an independent predictor of operative mortality for patients undergoing CABG, and could be a greater risk than LVEF < 35%. It is unclear if LVEDP is a better predictor of long-term survival than LVEF in patients undergoing CABG. We hypothesized that LVEDP may add further prognostic value than LVEF alone. We studied 6790 consecutive patients from 2004-2011 undergoing isolated CABG at our institution. Patients were divided into four groups based on LVEF and LVEDP: Group 1 (LVEF≥35%, LVEDP<18mmHg), Group 2 (LVEF<35%, LVEDP<18mmHg), Group 3 (LVEF≥35%, LVEDP≥18mmHg), and Group 4 (LVEF<35%, LVEDP≥18mmHg). The 4 groups had similar pre-operative characteristics of age, history of stoke, renal failure, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Patients with a low LVEF (Groups 2 and 4) had a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), smoking and history of myocardial infarction (p<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier survival curves identified that the groups with preserved LVEF had improved long-term survival compared to groups with depressed LVEF (p<0.001). As well, there was no significant correlation between elevated LVEDP and decreased survival in patients with a preserved LVEF (Group 1 versus Group 3, p=0.84). However, in patients with depressed LVEF<35%, an elevated LVEDP was associated with worse long-term survival when compared to patients with an LVEDP<18mmHg (Group 2 versus Group 4, p<0.001). The independent predictors of death by Cox proportional hazards modeling were: LVEF<35%, advanced age, COPD, PVD, dialysis dependent renal failure, and CHF (p<0.001); while elevated LVEDP≥18mmHg was not significant. We conclude that elevated LVEDP≥18mmHg is not an independent risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing isolated CABG; however, in patients with depressed LVEF<35%, an elevated LVEDP further prognosticates a significant decrease in long-term survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→