[Clinical application of redo coronary artery bypass grafting].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of redo CABG. METHODS: The outcomes of 42 consecutive patients who underwent redo CABG from January 2002 to December 2010 was analyzed. There were 29 males and 13 females, aging from 46 to 78 years old with a mean of (61.2 ± 2.1) years. Off-pump CABG was applied for 31 patients and on-pump CABG for 11 patients. There were 1 patient underwent concomitant aortic valve replacement and 1 patient underwent aortic root and right aortic arch replacement respectively. RESULTS: Three patients died of right ventricle rupture, heart failure and multiple system organ failure respectively and the perioperative mortality rate was 4.8%. The post-operatively mechanical ventilation time varied from 9 to 27 h with a mean of (17 ± 7) h. There was no residual angina and perioperative myocardial infarction in the remaining patients who were all discharged uneventfully. Intraoperative 6 patients had accepted intraaortic balloon counterpulsation. During the follow-up from 6 months to 4.5 years for 38 patients, which showed no evidence of recurrent angina and postoperative coronary CT angiography in 12 patients showed the patency of grafts is good. CONCLUSION: Satisfactory outcome of redo coronary artery bypass grafting can be achieved if proper indication were choose and reasonable management were performed.
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) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".