Conversion to on pump from OPCAB is associated with increased mortality: results from a randomized controlled trial☆
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent developments in cardiac stabilization devices, have made OPCAB feasible. However, there is conflicting evidence to date regarding the rate and adverse events associated with conversion from OPCAB to CABG with CPB. The objective of the present study was to review all conversions in the setting of a randomized controlled trial comparing CABG with or without CPB. METHODS: Three hundred patients requiring CABG surgery at a single institution were prospectively randomized to have the procedure performed with CPB (n=150) or OPCAB (n=150). Patients that could not be performed OPCAB were defined as conversion group (cross over). RESULTS: Twenty patients were converted from OPCAB to CABG with CPB because of hemodynamic instability (14/20), small target vessel (5/20), or inadequate visualization (1/20). Seventeen were converted during attempts at coronary anastomosis: LAD/diagonal (7/20), circumflex (8/20), or right coronary (2/20). The overall in hospital mortality rate for the trial was 1% but was significantly higher in converted patients (10 vs. 0%; P=0.01). Converted patients required significantly more inotropes (P=0.001) and blood transfusions (P=0.05). An elevated BMI was the only pre-operative variable that appeared to be associated with conversion. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a randomized controlled trial the overall conversion rate associated with OPCAB reached 13% and was associated with an increased risk of mortality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".