Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Configuration for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) have demonstrated superior patency and improved survival in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. However, the optimal configuration for BITA utilization and its effect on long-term outcome remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 304 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting using BITA to either in situ or Y grafting configurations. The primary end point was 3-year angiographic patency. Secondary end points included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (ie, death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) at 7 years. More coronary targets were able to be revascularized using internal thoracic arteries in patients randomized to Y grafting versus in situ group (3.2±0.8 versus 2.4±0.5 arteries/patient; P<0.01). The primary end point did not show significant differences in graft patency between groups. Secondary end points occurred more frequently in the in situ group (P=0.03), with 7-year rates of 34±10% in the in situ and 25±12% in the Y grafting groups, driven largely by a higher incidence of repeat revascularization in the in situ group (14±4.5% versus 7.4±3.2% at 7 years; P=0.009). There were no significant differences in hospital mortality or morbidity or in late survival, myocardial infarction, or stroke between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Three-year systematic angiographic follow-up revealed no significant difference in graft patency between the 2 BITA configurations. However, compared with in situ configuration, the use of BITA in a Y grafting configuration results in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 7 years. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01666366.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".