Is there any benefit of preoperative oral trimetazidine in coronary artery bypass graft?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of preoperative oral trimetazidine on myocardial protection in coronary bypass surgery. METHODS: We conducted a prospective double blind randomized study in the Department of Cardiac Surgery, Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi (CPE) Institute of Cardiology, Multan, Pakistan. One hundred and seventy (170) patients of isolated CABG were included in the study. All operations were done by conventional technique of CABG using cardiopulmonary bypass, moderate systemic hypothermia and cold antegrade blood cardioplegia. The patients were randomized into 2 groups i.e. Group 1 (n = 85), who received and Group 2 (n = 85), who did not receive Trimetazidine. Trimetazidine (20 mg) was given orally, at 10:00 pm the night before operation and also at 7.00 am on the day of surgery. The CPK and CK-MB levels were determined before operation, immediately after shifting to the ICU, 12 hours and 36 hours after the operation. The comparison of CPK and CK-MB levels was carried out using analysis of variance with repeated measures. The peri-operative clinical and laboratory data were compared using Student's t-test for numeric variables and Chi-square test for categoric varaibles. The difference was considered statistically significant if the p-value was < 0.05. RESULTS: The pre-operative variables i.e. age, gender, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class, ejection fraction, diabetes, history of smoking, haemoglobin level, serum creatinine etc had no differences in both group. Both groups showed no significant difference in Cardiopulmonary Bypass time (BPT), Aortic cross Clamp Time (CxT), prevalence of intra-operative arrhythmia and need for inotropic support. The analysis did not show any within group or between groups differences in the CPK and CKMB levels. CONCLUSION: This study showed that oral Trimetazidine given before coronary bypass grafting did not provide any benefit in myocardial protection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".