Gender Differences in Outcomes After Hospital Discharge From Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few comparative data regarding long-term nonfatal outcomes for women versus men after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This study compares gender differences in cardiac events in a population of hospital survivors up to 11 years after isolated CABG surgery in Ontario, Canada. METHODS AND RESULTS: A population-based cohort study (n=68,774 patients, 15,043 women) between September 1, 1991, and April 1, 2002, was assembled with linked clinical and administrative databases. Cox modeling and propensity score matching were used to compare death, cardiac readmission (angina, heart failure, myocardial infarction), repeat revascularization (angioplasty or CABG), and stroke readmission between men and women. Women were older (65+/-17 versus 62+/-13 years), more likely to present with urgent or emergent status (64% versus 56%), and less likely to receive arterial grafts (70% versus 78%). Women had a higher rate of cardiac readmission in the first year after surgery (hazard ratio [HR] of 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36 to 1.56), and this increased risk persisted after 1 year (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.31). This was primarily due to readmissions for unstable angina (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.38) and congestive heart failure (HR 1.1, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.21). Propensity-matched women had similar rates of death (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98) and repeat revascularization (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Women have a more complex clinical preoperative presentation and are more likely to be readmitted with unstable angina and congestive heart failure after CABG but experience survival similar to those seen in men. Gender differences in outcomes may be improved through durable revascularization strategies and close postoperative follow-up care targeted to women.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".