MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053379255 · doi:10.1016/s1010-7940(01)00975-7

Coronary endothelial damage during off-pump CABG related to coronary-clamping and gas insufflation

2001· letter· en· W2053379255 on OpenAlexaff
Roland Demaria, Simon Fortier, Louis P. Perrault

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2001
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsufflationClampingCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineAnesthesiaEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with great interest the experimental article by Okazaki et al. about the morphological consequences on the endothelium of coronary occlusion with snares and gas insufflation during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB) in dogs [1]. Indeed, various systems have been developed, such as intracoronary shunting, gas jet insufflation, and snaring sutures, to obtain a bloodless field during anastomosis, but the safest technique for the morphologic and functional preservation of the endothelial layer remains to be established. Using the same experimental assessment of coronary lesions (scanning electron microscopy), Hangler et al. have described recently coronary artery lesions secondary to snare application in patients before removal of the recipient heart during a transplantation, under cardiopulmonary bypass and full heparinization. Examination with scanning electron microscopy showed that snares cause focal endothelial denudation, microthrombosis, and atherosclerotic plaque rupture [2]. Furthermore, more severe endothelial lesions were found with the polypropylene suture (non-elastic suture) than with the silicone loop (elastic suture). These results confirm the experimental findings in healthy canine coronary arteries reported by Okasaki et al. Other groups, such as our own, have chosen endothelial function as a sensitive marker of surgical intimal injury, especially for assessment of coronary occlusive devices for OPCAB, which can lead to acute spasm or thrombosis and chronic intimal hyperplasia. In a prior study [3], gas jet insufflation on swine coronary arteries caused a significant decrease in endothelium-dependent relaxation to 5-hydroxytryptamine with minimal damage and preservation of endothelial continuity and architecture with silver nitrate staining. Another functional study in swine showed that snaring of the coronary artery (with thread 4/0 Gore-Tex®) to achieve hemostasis at the anastomotic site did not cause any endothelial dysfunction in healthy coronary arteries [4], despite ultrastructural lesions on the endothelial layer and blood cell adhesion demonstrated by Hangler and recently by Okazaki. Adequate anticoagulation appears to be a very important point to improve clinical results. Indeed, patients undergoing the off-pump coronary operation show an increased procoagulant activity on the first postoperative day. As a result, these patients should be considered to be at increased risk of thrombotic graft occlusion, and this risk may be higher in cases of endothelial or arterial wall injury. It appears to be recommended to keep the intraoperative activated clotting time at more than 300 s and not to neutralize the heparin with protamine unless uncontrollable bleeding occurs [5]. Hemostatic systems remain necessary in OPCAB, but the perfect system in terms of safety on the arterial wall remains to be developed. Due to the risks described above, the use of hemostatic devices must always be guided by the concern of inducing as little trauma as possible. Better knowledge of the effects of these devices on the biology of the arterial wall, and especially on the endothelium, will provide better choices and guide the development of the optimal technique.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207