Results of Adjunctive Coronary Endarterectomy in 548 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary endarterectomy is a controversial procedure that plays a particular role in the treatment of coronary artery disease. We retrospectively investigated the results for 548 patients who underwent coronary endarterectomy as an adjunctive therapy for coronary artery bypass graft surgery during the period between 1996 and 2004. We assessed short-term outcomes and identified risk factors for adverse outcomes. Mean patient age was 67.9 + 9.3 years and mean angina class was 2.7 + 0.3. The mean number of distal anastomoses was 3.8 + 1.1 patients (73.4%) had single and 151 (27.6%) multiple coronary artery endarterectomies. Of the 151 patients who underwent multiple endarterectomies, 97 (17.7%) had endarterectomies in 2 coronary arteries, 40 (7.2%) in 3 coronary arteries, 11 (2%) in 4 coronary arteries, 2 (0.36%) in 5 coronary arteries, and 1 (0.18%) in 6 coronary arteries. Postoperative mortality was 6.2% (34 patients). The predictors for early mortality were recent myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction. Our results suggest that adjunctive coronary endarterectomy can be accomplished with acceptable results but with higher mortality rates than ordinary coronary artery bypass grafting. Adjunctive coronary endarterectomy should be considered as a last option for the surgical treatment of diffuse coronary disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".