MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073559101 · doi:10.3810/hp.2013.08.1064

Longer In-Hospital Wait Times Do Not Result in Worse Outcomes for Patients Requiring Urgent Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

2013· article· en· W2073559101 on OpenAlexaff
Rizwan A. Manji, Eric Jacobsohn, Hilary P. Grocott, Alan H. Menkis

Bibliographic record

VenueHospital Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArteryCoronary artery bypass surgerySurgeryBypass surgeryCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In certain health care systems, patients wait for non-emergency services. Although waiting may not be considered acceptable, the delay may allow for patient optimization, such as giving time for "toxic" agents to be cleared, that could improve outcomes. We sought to determine the relationship between wait times and outcomes in in-hospital patients undergoing urgent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospectively collected database of consecutive, medically urgent, but clinically stable patients undergoing CABG surgery from 1995 to 2007, was analyzed. A total of 3067 patients with need for urgent CABG surgery with various in-hospital wait times (n = 440, 0-2 days; n = 799, 3-5 days; n = 1317, 6-10 days; n = 511, 11-15 days) were included. There were no differences in mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) or post-surgery hospital length of stay (LOS) among the patient groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that wait time was not associated with mortality (P = 0.625). Due to changes in the nonsurgical management of coronary artery disease, a separate analysis of patients, from 2002 to 2007, was also performed to explore contemporary results. In the latter subset, 1495 patients (n = 175, 341, 720, 259, in the same 4 respective wait-time groups) were included; the 0-2 days patient group underwent more blood transfusions (50% vs 38%; P = 0.01), prolonged ventilation (6% vs 2%; P = 0.05), post-operative dialysis (2% vs 0%; P = 0.08), and longer ICU LOS (26 vs 23 hours; P = 0.02) compared with the 3-5 days patient group. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk scores of the 0-2 days and 3-5 days groups were the same (1.5%). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that increased wait time was associated with fewer patients requiring blood transfusion (P < 0.05) for CABG surgery. CONCLUSION: Waiting for in-hospital urgent CABG surgery does not lead to worse patient outcomes and may, in fact, reduce the procedural and medical risks of postoperative blood transfusions, prolonged ventilation, dialysis, and shorten ICU LOS.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHospital PracticeSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207