MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of a Preoperative Intervention on Preoperative and Postoperative Outcomes in Low-Risk Patients Awaiting Elective Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

2000· article· en· W2110633643 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather M. Arthur

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCoronary artery bypass surgeryQuality of life (healthcare)Elective surgeryRehabilitationIntensive care unitAnxietyArteryPhysical therapyEmergency medicineSurgeryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In publicly funded health care systems, a waiting period for such services as coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is common. The possibility of using the waiting period to improve patient outcomes should be investigated. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of a multidimensional preoperative intervention on presurgery and postsurgery outcomes in low-risk patients awaiting elective CABG. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: A regional cardiovascular surgery center in a tertiary care hospital, southwestern Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: 249 patients on a waiting list for elective CABG whose surgeries were scheduled for a minimum of 10 weeks from the time of study recruitment. INTERVENTION: During the waiting period, the treatment group received exercise training twice per week, education and reinforcement, and monthly nurse-initiated telephone calls. After surgery, participation in a cardiac rehabilitation program was offered to all patients. MEASUREMENTS: Postoperative length of stay was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were exercise performance, general health-related quality of life, social support, anxiety, and utilization of health care services. RESULTS: Length of stay differed significantly between groups. Patients who received the preoperative intervention spent 1 less day [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0 day] in the hospital overall (P = 0.002) and less time in the intensive care unit (median, 2.1 hours [CI, -1.2 to 16 hours]; P = 0.001). During the waiting period, patients in the intervention group had a better quality of life than controls. Improved quality of life continued up to 6 months after surgery. Mortality rates did not differ. CONCLUSION: The waiting period for elective procedures, such as CABG, may be used to enhance in-hospital and early-phase recovery, improving patients' functional abilities and quality of life while reducing their hospital stay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations463
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207