MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2411049558

[Emergency coronary artery bypass grafting for acute coronary syndrome with preoperative intraaortic balloon pumping; comparative surgical outcome and long-term results].

2003· article· en· W2411049558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keiji Kamohara, Masaru Yoshikai, Junji Yunoki, Hideyuki Fumoto, T Itoh, Junichi Murayama, Masae HAMADA

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockUnstable anginaMyocardial infarctionAcute coronary syndromeCardiologyInternal medicineConventional PCIEjection fractionArterySurgeryPercutaneous coronary interventionCoronary artery diseaseCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyAnginaHeart failure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With recent technical improvements in catheter interventional therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has now become the treatment of first choice for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The objective of the present study was to evaluate critically the timing of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for severe ACS with preoperative intraaortic balloon pumping (IABP). Since 1994, a total of 70 patients have gone emergency or urgent CABG for ACS. Of 70 patients, 50 patients required preoperative IABP. There were 22 patients (17 men, 5 women) with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), with a mean age of 67.7 years, and 28 patients (19 men, 9 women) with unstable angina pectoris (UAP), with a mean age of 69.2 years. There was a significant difference, between AMI and UAP, in the prevalence of emergency operation (95.5% vs 25.0%), in preoperative cardiogenic shock (81.8% vs 17.9%), in the level of preoperative CPK-MB (196.7 IU/l vs 2.0 IU/l) and in preoperative ejection fraction (41.8% vs 47.3%). Two patients in AMI required percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS). Thirteen patients in AMI and 22 patients in UAP presented left main trunk (LMT) disease. Of the 13 LMT patients in AMI, 4 patients were AMI due to acute occlusion in the LMT. The AMI patients received 2.45 distal anastomoses on average, while the UAP patients 3.14 distal anastomoses (p = 0.019). Excluding the mean number of distal anastomoses, there was no difference in the intraoperative technical factors, such as aortic cross clamping duration, cardiopulmonary bypass duration, rate of complete revascularization, between AMI and UAP. There were postoperative significant differences in low cardiac output syndrome (LOS) [45.6% in AMI vs 3.6% in UAP] and in prolongation of mechanical ventilation (59.1% in AMI vs 14.3% in UAP). The hospital mortality was 9.1% (2/22) in AMI, and 3.6% (1/28) in UAP, with no significant difference. Of these 3 patients, 1 patient died from perioperative cerebrovascular accident (CVA), another from LOS, and the other from postoperative mesenteric ischemia, with an overall mortality of 6.0% (3/50). The overall patency rate of the grafts was 100% in AMI and 96.6% in UAP. The 5-year-survival rate excluding in-hospital death was 72.5% in AMI, and 89.6% in UAP. The 5-year-cardiac event-free rate was 77% in AMI and 89.4% in UAP. The overall survival rate, and cardiac event-free rate, at 5 years was 80.8%, and 83.8%, respectively. In conclusion, for ACS cases, especially UAP cases of LMT, in which symptoms, findings of ischemia and hemodynamics are stabilized by medical intervention including IABP; emergency surgery could be avoided immediately after coronary angiography. Recovery in the ischemic myocardium is intended by IABP, and urgent surgery should be performed after sufficient and precise preoperative examinations. An improvement not only in the perioperative but also long-term results can be expected by performing complete revascularizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices→French-language works237,207→