"Hybrid" percutaneous and surgical coronary revascularization: selection criteria from a single-center experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) of large arteries with focal lesions can be an alternative therapeutic method for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. We reviewed our experience regarding 42 patients treated at our Institute. METHODS: MIDCAB and PTCA of the circumflex or right coronary arteries > 3 mm were performed in 42 patients from September 1997 to December 1999. RESULTS: One patient died after MIDCAB in the operating room because of rupture of the left anterior descending anastomosis. Postoperative angiography confirmed patency of the internal mammary artery (IMA) graft in 92.3% of cases: 3 early IMA graft failures occurred. The success rate for PTCA was 98%: in 1 case the wire just would not cross a chronically and totally occluded right coronary artery. The in-hospital morbidity was 12.2%: 2 patients required urgent sternotomy respectively for cardiac tamponade and coronary artery bypass grafting on cardiopulmonary bypass. One patient developed atheroembolism after PTCA with recurrence of symptoms, progressive multiorgan failure and death. Two patients required PTCA on the IMA anastomosis because of early failure of the arterial graft. At a medium follow-up of 535 days, all 40 survivors are in Canadian Cardiovascular Society class I. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid revascularization appears to be an effective treatment for selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The immediate success seems related to the learning curve for MIDCAB.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".