Coronary Bypass Surgery Performed off Pump Does Not Result in Lower In-Hospital Morbidity Than Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Performed on Pump
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) may be responsible for the morbidity associated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Recent developments in cardiac stabilization devices have made CABG without CPB feasible. However, there is conflicting evidence to date from published trials comparing outcomes between CABG performed with and without CPB, with some trials indicating an advantage to the avoidance of CPB and others showing little benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a single-center randomized trial, 300 patients requiring CABG surgery at a single institution were prospectively randomized to have the procedure performed with CPB (n=150) or on the beating heart (n=150). Exclusion criteria for the trial included emergency procedure, concomitant major cardiac procedures, ejection fraction <30%, and reoperation. In-hospital outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. A mean of 3.0+/-0.9 grafts were performed in the CPB group compared with 2.8+/-0.9 grafts in the beating-heart group (P=0.06). There were no significant differences between the CPB group and the beating-heart group in mortality (0.7% versus 1.3%; P=1.0), transfusion (8.7% versus 9.3%), perioperative myocardial infarction (0.7% versus 2.7%; P=0.37), permanent stroke (0% versus 1.3%; P=0.50), new atrial fibrillation (32% versus 25%; P=0.20), and deep sternal wound infection (0.7% versus 0%; P=1.0). The mean time to extubation was 4 hours, the mean stay in the intensive care unit was 22 hours, and the median length of hospitalization was 5 days in both groups (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to published trials, we were unable to demonstrate any advantage with CABG performed without CPB in terms of patient morbidity. Excellent results can be obtained with either surgical approach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".