Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass for the treatment of isolated disease of the left anterior descending coronary artery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of isolated stenosis or occlusion of the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery through a left anterior mini-thoracotomy has only recently been advocated as an acceptable alternative to standard coronary artery bypass through a sternotomy and with cardiopulmonary bypass grafting. We reviewed our experience with the minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) procedure. METHODS: A retrospective clinical and angiographic review was conducted on all patients who underwent MIDCAB between October 1998 and February 2002 with subsequent telephone follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-two consecutive patients (39 men, 13 women, mean [and standard deviation] age 57.3 [12.3] yr) underwent MIDCAB without videoscopic assistance. Eight patients (15%) were converted intraoperatively to sternotomy, and 5 (10%) patients required cardiopulmonary bypass after conversion. There were no perioperative deaths, myocardial infarctions, re-explorations for bleeding or need for transfusions. At a median follow-up time of 27.7 (range 1.9-40.5) months, there were no late deaths or myocardial infarctions. Four patients had anastomotic stenoses and underwent successful percutaneous coronary angioplasty and are asymptomatic. All patients are free of significant anginal symptoms (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class 0 or I). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent early and mid-term clinical results can be obtained with MIDCAB. To ensure optimal graft quality, conversion to sternotomy should be liberally employed. It is anticipated that the use of an endoscope may limit this complication.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".