The impact of diffuseness of coronary artery disease on the outcomes of patients undergoing primary and reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting☆
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Diffuse coronary artery disease jeopardizes myocardium, increasing surgical mortality in primary coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We sought to determine the impact of diffuseness on pre- and post-discharge outcomes for both primary and reoperative CABG (REOP). METHODS: Using a validated system for measuring diffuseness of coronary disease, preoperative angiograms were scored for primary CABG (n=792) and REOP cases (n=268) performed 1997-2004. A diffuseness score (DS)>18 was defined as elevated. In-hospital mortality, intermediate-term survival, and in-hospital composite outcome (COMP) (one or more of: mortality, stroke, MI, deep sternal infection, sepsis, IABP insertion, or return to OR) were examined. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality and COMP for patients with DS>18 were significantly higher (7.9% vs 2.4%, p<0.0001), (17.8% vs 9.2%, p<0.0001). DS (mean+/-SD) was higher in REOP cases than primary CABG (18.9+/-7.1 vs 14.4+/-6.0, p<0.0001). By multivariate analysis, DS>18 (OR 2.00, 95%CI, 1.20-3.32, p=0.008) and REOP (OR 2.40, 95%CI, 1.53-3.77, p<0.0001) were independently associated with COMP. Using propensity scores 82% of cases with DS>18 (n=289) were matched 1:1 to cases with DS<or=18. In-hospital mortality and COMP were significantly higher for cases with DS>18 (6.9% vs 2.8%, p=0.02), (16.6% vs 10.4%, p=0.03). Comparing cases with DS<or=18 versus DS>18 and primary CABG versus REOP, survival at 2 years was 92.1% versus 84.5% (p=0.001) and 92.7% versus 82.7% (p<0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse coronary artery disease is an important predictor of morbidity and mortality in primary and REOP CABG patients, and should be considered in both individual patient assessment and risk adjustment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".