[Chronic effects of transmyocardial laser revascularization combined with off-pump coronary artery by pass (OPCAB) compared with OPCAB alone in patients with ischemic heart disease: a prospective multicenter follow-up study].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To approach the long term safety and efficacy of transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMLR, holmium: YAG) combined with off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) compared with OPCAB alone in patients with ischemic cardiac disease. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2005, 80 patients with diffusely diseased target vessels from two centers in Beijing were enrolled to the study and randomized to receive either TMLR/OPCAB (n = 40) or OPCAB (n = 40) operation. Baseline demographics and operative characteristics were similar between groups. Follow-up (mean 3.4 +/- 1.7 years) included CCS angina class and NYHA classification assessments, 6 minutes walking test (6MWT) and echocardiography. RESULTS: Perioperative mortality was 5% in both groups. No death occurred during follow up. At the end of follow-up, patients at both groups experienced significant improvement on angina score compared with baseline, and angina score was also significantly lower (1.21 +/- 0.42 vs. 1.57 +/- 0.87, P = 0.03) and 6MWT-distance significantly increased (518.0 +/- 65.5 m vs. 473.8 +/- 65.8m, P = 0.006) in OPCAB/TMLR group than that in the OPCAB group. Fewer patients developed recurrent severe angina and received re-CABG/PCI in OPCAB/TMLR group than that in the OPCAB (1 vs. 6 cases, P = 0.113). NYHA and LVEF were similar between the groups at the end of follow up. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the addition of TMLR to OPCAB is superior in improving angina and exercise tolerance, but there is no further improvement in cardiac function compared to OPCAB alone.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".