Decreased incidence of low output syndrome with a switch from tepid to cold continuous minimally diluted blood cardioplegia in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The optimal temperature for blood cardioplegia remains unclear. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 138 patients undergoing isolated myocardial revascularization by a single surgeon in our institution over a period of 2 years. Patients operated on early in the study period received tepid (29°C) continuous minimally diluted blood cardioplegia (minicardioplegia), delivered in an antegrade continuous fashion. Later, our surgeon began using cold (7°C) blood minicardioplegia in all patients. Data pertaining to clinical outcomes and postoperative biochemical data were obtained, and the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Low cardiac output syndrome, defined as the need for intra-aortic balloon pump counter pulsation or inotropic medication for haemodynamic instability, was more frequent in the tepid cardioplegia group than in the cold cardioplegia group (16.0 vs 2.4%, P = 0.006). There was no difference in the maximal serum creatine kinase MB between the two groups (cold 25.4 ± 3.21 μg/ml vs tepid 36.5 ± 7.10 μg/ml, P = 0.62), in the rates of perioperative myocardial infarction (cold 1.2% vs tepid 6.0%, P = 0.15) and the need for postoperative insertion of an intra-aortic balloon pump (cold 4.8% vs tepid 0.0%, P = 0.3). There was no other statistically significant difference between the two groups in the measured parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A higher rate of low cardiac output syndrome in the tepid cardioplegia group suggests inferior myocardial protection with the tepid cardioplegia. Cold cardioplegia may provide better protection than tepid cardioplegia when minicardioplegia is used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".