Off-Pump versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Procedures: Postoperative Renal Complications in an Asian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diabetes and habitual smoking cause advanced coronary artery disease (CAD) in Asian patients at a younger age. No definite data exist as to whether off-pump (OPCAB) is better than conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CCAB) in terms of postoperative renal complications. Thus, we aimed to compare the renal outcomes of on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on our patients, which constituted a predominantly Asian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 395 patients following CCAB were compared with 293 patients who underwent OPCAB. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative data, intensive care unit stay, number of grafts, New York Heart Association (NYHA) score, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, EuroSCORE risk assessment model, and postoperative complications particularly renal, were collected and analysed. RESULTS: The off-pump group consisted of significantly older patients with higher Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and ASA scores. Additionally, the off-pump group involved a significantly greater number of smokers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Other demographic parameters were not different between the groups. Postoperative investigations showed a significantly elevated serum creatinine (100.3 +/- 42.5 vs 127.6 +/- 114.2 micromol/L; off-pump vs on-pump; P = 0.039) and urea levels (5.9 +/- 3.1 vs 10.6 +/- 15.6 mg/dL; off-pump vs on-pump; P = 0.006) in the on-pump group. Moreover, there was a high tendency towards a higher rate of renal dysfunction associated death in this group. CONCLUSIONS: OPCAB is a safe and equally efficient operative method compared to CCAB, and has a significant lower risk for postoperative renal complications as a treatment modality for surgical coronary revascularisation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".