A novel composite coronary bypass graft strategy: the saphenous vein bridge—a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this pilot study was to describe and assess the safety of a novel composite graft technique for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. A saphenous vein is grafted to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and other anterolateral coronary arteries, creating a saphenous vein bridge (SVB) and the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) is anastomosed to the SVB, distributing the blood flow distally (LIMA-SVB). METHODS: All patients who underwent CABG with the LIMA-SVB between 2005 and 2008 at our centre were enrolled in this study. Perioperative data were retrospectively collected from hospital charts, and the clinical follow-up was completed by telephone interview. Graft patency was assessed by computed tomography angiography (CTA) in patients with the longest follow-up time (n = 20). RESULTS: A total of 256 patients (mean age: 67 ± 12 years; 79% male) received 4.0 ± 1.0 grafts, including 2.2 ± 0.4 distal grafts provided by the LIMA-SVB. Nine (3.5%) deaths and 4 (1.6%) myocardial infarctions (MIs) were noted in the perioperative period. With a median follow-up time of 36 months [inter-quartile range 31-44], 1 (0.5%) MI and 2 (1.0%) strokes were reported. At 51 months post-surgery [47-53], CTA demonstrated a LIMA pedicle (n = 20) and SVB (n = 42) patency rate of 100 and 93%, respectively. Specifically, the LIMA-SVB patency rate was 100% to the LAD and 85% to diagonal arteries. Aortocoronary vein grafts (n = 38) patency rate in the same patients was 87%. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization of the anterolateral territory using the LIMA-SVB is a promising approach considering its clinical safety and favourable patency rate results. A prospective randomized clinical trial is underway to compare this technique to conventional CABG.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".