Is Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Use Safe in the Elderly?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The strategy of bilateral mammary artery grafting is often not considered for elderly patients due to perceived concerns of increased morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study is to explore the safety of bilateral mammary in elderly patients. METHODS: Out of 7746 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using at least one internal thoracic artery (ITA), there were 3940 patients aged 65 years or greater, and of those, 3581 patients had a single ITA (SITA) and 359 patients had bilateral ITAs (BITAs). The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Secondary outcomes included re-exploration for bleeding, blood transfusions, sternal wound infections, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: The incidence of mortality and MACCE were similar in both groups (mortality BITA 2.6%, SITA 3.6%, p = 0.25, MACCE BITA 8.5%, SITA 6.1%, p = 0.13). Superficial and deep sternal site infections were significantly more prevalent in the BITA group than the SITA group [superficial OR 0.42, 95% CI [0.23-0.75] (p = 0.003) and deep OR 0.29, 95% CI [0.14-0.58 (p = 0.0005)]. CONCLUSION: Use of BITA is safe in the elderly with respect to mortality and early cardiovascular outcome. BITA use in the elderly is associated with an increased risk of sternal wound infection. Our experience in this situation suggests that there is a maximum age (approximately 74 years) beyond which the combined risk of MACCE and wound complications supersedes the benefits in terms of sternal infections.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it