Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via a small thoracotomy versus off-pump: a case-matched study☆☆☆
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) operation performed via a small thoracotomy has not previously been examined in a direct comparison to sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). METHODS: We matched, according to age, gender, left ventricular function, and median number of distal anastomoses, 150 patients who underwent MICS CABG via small left thoracotomy, and 150 patients who received sternotomy OPCAB. All operations were performed by the same surgeon. RESULTS: There was no perioperative mortality (0/300). In the MICS CABG group, pump assistance was used in 28/150 (19%) patients, and conversion to sternotomy occurred in 10/150 (6.7%) patients. In the OPCAB group, conversion to on-pump occurred in 3/150 (2.0%) patients. There were four (2.7%) reoperations for bleeding and one (0.7%) for anastomotic revision in each group. The median hospital length of stay was 5 days for MICS CABG (average 5.4), and 6 days for OPCAB (average 7.2) (P=0.02). New-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 35 (23%) MICS CABG patients and in 42 (28%) OPCAB patients (P=0.3). No wound infection occurred with MICS CABG versus six (4.0%) with OPCAB (P=0.03). A self-limiting left pleural effusion developed in 22 (15%) MICS CABG patients and in six (4.0%) OPCAB patients (P=0.002). The median time to return to full physical activity was 12 days in MICS CABG patients versus >5 weeks in OPCAB patients (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MICS CABG is a valuable alternative for patients in need of multivessel CABG. The operation appears at least as safe as OPCAB, and associated with shorter hospital length of stay, less wound infections, and faster postoperative recovery than OPCAB.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".