Late outcomes of on-pump and off-pump redo coronary artery bypass grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Benefits of off-pump surgery are still widely debated in the literature comparing with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. The aim of our study was to compare the late outcomes of patients who underwent on-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery with those who had off-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two groups of patients were compared. Group 1 consisted of 34 patients who underwent off-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery, and Group 2 included 160 patients who underwent on-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery. Both groups of patients were operated on by the same team of surgeons at the same time period. Groups did not differ by age, gender, functional class, preoperative myocardial infarction rate, and left ventricular function. More patients with hypertension were in the off-pump group. Significantly more grafts were performed in the on-pump group. Survival, presence of angina, reoccurrence of postoperative myocardial infarction, necessity of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and reoperations were evaluated in late follow-up period. The duration of follow-up was 3.37+/-2.15 years in the off-pump group and 3.27+/-2.36 years in the on-pump group. RESULTS: Survival after 6 years in the off-pump and on-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery groups was 85.3% and 83.6%, respectively (P=0.758). Five years after redo operation, 54.9% of patients who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery and 69.3% of patients who underwent on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery had no angina (P=0.174). There were no major cardiac events (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, death, myocardial infarction, and reoperations) after 6 years in 69.7% of patients in the off-pump group and 76.9% of patients in the on-pump group (P=0.343). Five years after redo surgery, 79.4% of patients in the off-pump group and 91.9% in the on-pump group were free of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (P<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in survival despite the fact that patients in the on-pump group received more grafts than those in the off-pump group. Recurrence of angina and incidence of major cardiac events were almost equal in both the groups. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was more frequently performed in the patients of off-pump group at late follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".