Mortality and morbidity in reoperation comparing to first intervention in coronary revascularization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery reoperation represents about 20% of coronary artery operations. In this study we compared mortality and morbidity of first intervention and redo operation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: a retrospective study. SETTINGS: patients who underwent coronary artery reoperations in a University Cardiac Surgery Division in 1991-1994. PATIENTS: our clinical survey was composed of two groups: group A included 44 consecutive patients (mean age 60+/-7 years, males/females=41/3) who underwent a coronary artery reoperation in the years 1991-1994 at the University Cardiac Surgery Division of Turin; group B included 344 patients (mean age 58+/-8 years, males/females=289/55) randomly selected among those who underwent a first coronary operation in the above indicated period of time and centre. All patients had angina pectoris refractory to maximal medical therapy. INTERVENTIONS: all patients underwent a coronary artery operation in extracorporeal circulation (ECC), under mild hypothermia (30-32 degrees C), during a single aortic clamp period, with antegrade cold crystalloid cardioplegia (St. Thomas). MEASURES: comparison of clinical preoperative features, risk factors and postoperative mortality and morbidity between the two groups. RESULTS: In reoperated patients we observed a greater mean akinesis score (p<0.001) and severe left ventricular dysfunction presence (p=0.014). Reoperation mortality was 11.4% against first operation mortality of 3.2% (p=0.03). Female gender (p=0.03), intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation need (p=0.002), adrenaline use (p=0.004) and low cardiac output syndrome (p=0.007) were all perioperative risk factors in group A. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary artery reoperation involves a higher mortality and morbidity compared to the first operation, especially related to the reduced left ventricular function which characterises the population that undergoes reoperation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".