Skeletonized bilateral internal mammary arteries for non-elective surgical revascularization in unstable angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and outcome of skeletonized bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) in patients with unstable angina (UA) undergoing non-elective myocardial revascularization. METHODS: Between January 1997 and December 2003, 758 patients, mean age 62+/-12 years, underwent non-elective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unstable angina. Two hundred and five (27%) were operated emergently and 503 (73%) urgently. BIMA were employed in 320 (42%) patients (Group B) and isolated left IMA and/or saphenous vein grafts in the remaining 438 (58%) patients (Group M). RESULTS: In-hospital mortality (B = 5.9% and M = 5.3%), and perioperative myocardial infarction (B = 2.2%; M = 1.96%) were similar between the two groups (P = ns). Actuarial survival at 1, 3 and 7 years was 98.7, 97.5 and 96.2% in B and 99, 94.3 and 88.4% in M (P < 0.05 at 7 years follow-up). At 7 years follow-up, the event-free cardiac survival (92 vs. 87%, P = 0.021), angina-free survival (98.6 vs. 94%, P = 0.039), reoperation-free cardiac survival (98 vs. 95%, P = 0.04) and infarct-free cardiac survival (98.7 vs. 96%, P = 0.05) were better in Group B. Multivariate analysis identified age > 65 years (P = 0.02), LVEF < 35% (P = 0.01), > 1 ischemic irreversible area (P = 0.03) as independent predictors for late deaths, while the use of the LIMA (P=0.006) and both mammary arteries (P=0.001) decreased the risk of late deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The use of BIMA in non-elective CABG for UA is safe and effective. Mid-term outcome, however, are superior with improved freedom from cardiac death, from coronary reintervention and from myocardial infarction.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".