Prehabilitation program for elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients: a pilot randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a cardiac prehabilitation (Prehab) program for patients waiting for elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). DESIGN: A two-group parallel randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Medical fitness facility. SUBJECTS: Seventeen preoperative elective CABG surgery patients were randomized to standard care (n = 9) or Prehab (n = 8). INTERVENTION: Standard care: three-hour preassessment appointment. Prehab: exercise and education classes for 60 minutes/day, twice weekly for at least four weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Data were collected at baseline, one week preoperatively, and three months postoperatively. The primary outcome measure was walking distance using a 6-minute walk test. Secondary outcome variables included 5-meter gait speed, and cardiac rehabilitation attendance three months postoperatively. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (standard care, n = 7; Prehab, n = 8) completed the study. No Prehab patients developed cardiac symptoms during study participation. Walking distance remained unchanged in the standard care group; whereas, the Prehab group increased their walking distance to mean ± SD 474 ±101 and 487 ±106 m at the preoperative and three month postoperative assessments (p < 0.05). Gait speed was unchanged in the standard care group, but improved in the Prehab group by 27% and 33% preoperatively and three months postoperatively, respectively (p < 0.05). Enrollment in cardiac rehabilitation three months postoperatively was higher for Prehab participants (100%) than standard care participants (43%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: These data provide evidence for the feasibility of a Prehab intervention to improve the health status of patients waiting for elective CABG surgery. A larger trial of 92 patients will be utilized to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of Prehab.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".