A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing CABG surgery performed with total arterial grafts or without
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To date only a few randomized controlled studies have compared grafting strategies in patients with multi-vessel coronary disease. This study represents a pilot RCT designed to test the feasibility of a trial comparing conventional CABG performed with a LIMA-LAD plus saphenous vein grafts (LIMA+SVG) and CABG performed with total arterial grafting (TAG). METHODS: Consenting patients undergoing non-redo isolated CABG surgery at a single institution were randomized to TAG or LIMA+SVG groups. Exclusion criteria included prior CABG, emergent procedure, concomitant procedure, varicose veins and renal dysfunction. The primary endpoints were: enrolment >20% and completion of CT coronary angiography at 6 months >80%. Statistical investigation was performed on an intention to treat analysis. RESULTS: Of 421 eligible patients, 60 were enrolled and 2 withdrew (n = 30 in TAG, n = 28 LIMA+SVG) for 14% enrolment rate. Patient characteristics were similar in each group. No patients died in hospital and adverse events such as MI, stroke and deep sternal wound infection were not significantly different between groups. Clinical follow-up was complete in 100% of patients, with 44/58 (76%) undergoing CT coronary angio at 6 months. Graft occlusion occurred in 2 patients in each group for patency rates of 89% (TAG) and 91% (LIMA+SVG). CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence that an RCT comparing grafting strategy is possible but also show that achieving recruitment or follow-up CT may be difficult. Given the excellent patency results and little difference between groups, our findings suggest that the sample size required may make it infeasible to compare graft patency at 6 months as a study end-point. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Randomized Controlled Trial number: ISRCTN80270323 . Few RCT's exist comparing conventional CABG performed with a LIMA-LAD plus saphenous vein grafts (LIMA+SVG) compared to CABG performed with total arterial grafting (TAG). This study is a pilot RCT designed to test the feasibility of such a trial and identify pitfalls.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".