A Randomized Comparison of Radial-Artery and Saphenous-Vein Coronary Bypass Grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past decade, the radial artery has frequently been used for coronary bypass surgery despite concern regarding the possibility of graft spasm. Graft patency is a key predictor of long-term survival. We therefore sought to determine the relative patency rate of radial-artery and saphenous-vein grafts in a randomized trial in which we controlled for bias in the selection of patients and vessels. METHODS: We enrolled 561 patients at 13 centers. The left internal thoracic artery was used to bypass the anterior circulation. The radial-artery graft was randomly assigned to bypass the major vessel in either the inferior (right coronary) territory or the lateral (circumflex) territory, with the saphenous-vein graft used for the opposing territory (control). The primary end point was graft occlusion, determined by angiography 8 to 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Angiography was performed at one year in 440 patients: 8.2 percent of radial-artery grafts and 13.6 percent of saphenous-vein grafts were completely occluded (P=0.009). Diffuse narrowing of the graft (the angiographic "string sign") was present in 7.0 percent of radial-artery grafts and only 0.9 percent of saphenous-vein grafts (P=0.001). The absence of severe native-vessel stenosis was associated with an increased risk of occlusion of the radial-artery graft and diffuse narrowing of the graft. Harvesting of the radial artery was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Radial-artery grafts are associated with a lower rate of graft occlusion at one year than are saphenous-vein grafts. Because the patency of radial-artery grafts depends on the severity of native-vessel stenosis, such grafts should preferentially be used for target vessels with high-grade lesions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".