Longer In-Hospital Wait Times Do Not Result in Worse Outcomes for Patients Requiring Urgent Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".