MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 2: The Changing Face of Cardiac Surgery: Frailty, Age, and Adverse Outcomes Create a Mandate for Shared Decision Making

2013· article· en· W2576689091 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Gainer, Karen J. Buth, Jennie G. David, Rose Garson, Hani N. Mufti, Greg Hirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaceCardiac surgeryStroke (engine)PopulationAtrial fibrillationHeart failureAdverse effectInternal medicineSurgeryEmergency medicinePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES The literature shows that comprehension of risks, benefits, and alternatives of treatment options is poor among patients referred for cardiac interventions. We have previously demonstrated that frail, elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery require complex procedures and are at markedly increased risk of postoperative death and prolonged institutional care. An effective informed consent process is critical in this population. We sought to determine the proportion of frail, elderly patients referred for cardiac surgery over time and their associated outcomes. METHODS Patient demographics and utilization rates from 2001 to 2010 were examined at a single cardiac surgery center. Patients were stratified by age (≤70, 71-79, 80+) and frailty (defined as any loss of independence in activities of daily living (Katz Index), ambulation, or a documented history of dementia; frailty data available since 2006). We examined case complexity (CABG, Valve, combined CABG+Valve) and in-hospital outcomes: major adverse cardiac events (MACE, defined as one or more of mortality, stroke, infection or renal failure), as well as ICU stay >7 days, and discharge (DC) to an institution. RESULTS In the past decade the proportion of patients 80+ has increased from 7% (75/1005) to 13% (105/824) while the proportion <70 has decreased from 63% (632/1005) to 57% (466/824) (p<0.0005). Isolated CABG surgery declined from (79% (789/1005) to 60% (497/824) while CABG+Valve cases increased from 9% (91/1005) to 12% (104/824) (p<0.05). CABG+Valve surgery was performed on 26% (228/893) of patients 80+ vs. 6% (348/5614) of patients <70 (p<0.0005). In the past five years the proportion of frail patients referred for surgery has increased from 3.8% (33/871) to 9.3% (77/824). Adverse outcomes were significantly higher for frail patients (p<0.0001) as shown in figure 1, as well as for older patients (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS We have identified increasing rates of elderly and frail patients with high-risk profiles referred for cardiac surgery. These patients experience higher rates of mortality and prolonged institutional care. We suggest this vulnerable patient population may benefit from the institution of a formalized shared decision making process to effectively communicate risks, benefits and alternatives to the planned procedure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207