MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149881929

Comparison of gastrointestinal complications in on-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

2009· article· en· W2149881929 on OpenAlexaff
Kris P Croome, Bob Kiaii, Stephanie A. Fox, Mackenzie Quantz, N McKenzie, Richard J. Novick

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary bypassSplanchnicOff-pump coronary artery bypassArteryBypass graftingCardiologyInternal medicinePathophysiologyAnesthesiaSurgeryHemodynamics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) complications following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), although infrequent, are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It has been suggested that systemic inflammatory response plays an important role in these complications. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is well known to cause increased systemic inflammation, and therefore it has been proposed that performing CABG using an off-pump technique could substantially minimize the risk of GI complications. Prolonged CPB duration has been shown to be an independent predictor of GI complications; however, the effect of avoiding CPB altogether through off-pump procedures has not been thoroughly examined. We sought to compare the incidence of GI complications in patients undergoing on-pump and off-pump CABG. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively entered data on 2451 patients who underwent isolated CABG between January 2000 and October 2004. We compared GI complication rates in 5 predetermined areas (GI bleed, ileus, pancreatitis, ischemic bowel and cholecystitis) among patients who had on-pump CABG with those of patients who had off-pump CABG. We also compared in-hospital mortality due to these complications between the 2 groups. RESULTS: We compared data for a total of 2010 patients in the on-pump group and 441 in the off-pump group. In the on-pump group, 30 (1.49%) patients experienced GI complications compared with 4 (0.91%) in the off-pump group (p = 0.34). Gastrointestinal bleed was the most common complication in the off-pump group. Eight patients in the on-pump group experienced ischemic bowels compared with no patients in the off-pump group. Six patients (0.3%) in the on-pump group died from GI complications, whereas no patients in the off-pump group died from such complications (p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the total number of GI complications between the off-pump and on-pump groups; however, trends could be seen in the types of GI complications that occurred in the 2 groups. Owing to the relatively infrequent occurrence of GI complications, a larger scale study would be beneficial to determine whether the differences observed would be significant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207