Predictors of Emergency Conversion to On-Pump during Off-Pump Coronary Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine predictors and evaluate outcomes of emergency conversion to cardiopulmonary bypass during planned off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. From January 2001 to November 2005, of 467 consecutive patients aged >or= 60 years who underwent off-pump coronary surgery, 17 (3.6%) were converted to cardiopulmonary bypass. Those converted to an on-pump technique had significantly higher rates of postoperative cerebrovascular accident (17.6% vs 1.1%), intraaortic balloon pumping (5.9% vs 0%), and red blood cell transfusion (82.4% vs 57.3%), as well as prolonged intensive care unit stay (52.9% vs 25.2%), ventilation time (25% vs 5.3%) and hospital stay (64.7% vs 31.3%) compared to patients whose operation was completed off-pump. Multivariable logistic regression identified left ventricular ejection and left main stenosis as significantly associated with conversion. The rate of emergency conversion to cardiopulmonary bypass during planned off-pump coronary surgery was acceptable, but patients who required conversion had less favorable early outcomes than those who remained off-pump.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".