Left main coronary artery stenosis: early experience with surgical revascularization without cardiopulmonary bypass.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the safety of surgical revascularization without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in left main stem (LMS) coronary stenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between October 1996 and April 1998, 67 consecutive patients with a > or =50% LMS stenosis underwent coronary revascularization without bypass (BH) and were compared to a contemporary group of 160 patients revascularized with conventional bypass (CPB). Mean ages in both groups were similar: 63.1 and 64.5 years in BH and CPB groups respectively (p=0.91). Significant triple vessel disease occurred in 40 (80%) and 75 (47.5%) patients in BH and CPB groups respectively (p=NS). Average grafts per patient was numbered 3.1 in BH group and 2.9 in CPB group (p=NS). The perioperative infarction rate (defined arbitrarily as a CK-MB >100 U/l) was 4% (2 patients, excluding 1 preoperative infarct) and 3.1% (5 patients, excluding 2 preoperative infarcts) in groups BH and CPB respectively (p=0.28). Postoperative blood transfusion requirements were less in BH group (19 patients, 38%) compared to CPB group (103 patients, 64.4%), (p=0.04). Postoperative inotropic requirements were similar in both groups; BH group (15 patients, 30%) and CPB group (72 patients, 45%). Mean hospital stay was 6.4 and 7.6 days in BH and CPB groups respectively (p=0.49). The hospital mortality rate was 0% and 3.8% (6 patients) in BH and CPB groups respectively (p=NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our early experience suggests that non-CPB surgical revascularization in LMS stenosis is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional cardiopulmonary bypass.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".