Lack of benefit for routine functional testing early after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: results from the ROSETTA-CABG Registry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little consensus regarding the use of functional testing after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Some physicians opt for a routine functional testing strategy, while others employ a symptom-driven strategy. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of routine post-CABG functional testing on the use of follow-up cardiac procedures and clinical events. METHODS: The Routine versus Selective Exercise Treadmill Testing after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery (ROSETTA-CABG) Registry is a prospective, multicenter cohort study examining the use of functional testing after CABG among 408 patients. The frequencies of functional testing, cardiac procedures, and clinical events were examined during the first 12 months following a successful CABG. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly male (80%) with a mean age of 63 +/- 10 years. During the 12-month follow up, 111 patients were observed to undergo a routine functional testing strategy, while 284 patients underwent a selective strategy. Patients undergoing routine functional testing underwent fewer follow-up cardiac catheterizations, but similar numbers of revascularization procedures (cardiac catheterizations = 0.9% vs. 8.1%; p = 0.027; percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] = 0.9% vs. 4.6%; p = NS; repeat CABG = 0.0% vs. 0.0%; p = NS, respectively). However, clinical events were less common among patients who underwent routine functional testing including unstable angina (0.0% vs. 6.4%; p = NS), myocardial infarction (MI) (0.0% vs. 2.1%; p = NS), and death (0.9% vs. 1.4%; p = NS). The majority of clinical and procedural events occurred in the selective group who had a positive functional test (clinical events = 33%; procedural events = 40%). In contrast, no events occurred in patients in the routine group with a positive or indeterminate test, while those with a negative test had more events (6.3%) and procedures (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Because routine functional testing 1 year after CABG is associated with extremely low event rates, this strategy does not appear to be warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".