Does the use of a free internal mammary artery graft on the left anterior descending artery compromise long-term survival?†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine if there is a long-term outcomes disadvantage associated with using the internal mammary artery (IMA) as a free graft to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) during coronary artery bypass graft surgery. METHODS: Between 1991 and 2014, 21 876 consecutive patients underwent isolated primary coronary artery bypass graft surgery at our institution. Among these, 238 underwent a free IMA (f-IMA) graft to bypass the LAD. Propensity score matching with bootstrap analysis was performed to produce a cohort of 222 f-IMA patients matched to 222 patients with in situ IMA grafting to the LAD. Early and long-term outcomes including survival, readmission for cardiovascular causes and repeat revascularization up to a maximum of 23 years post-coronary artery bypass graft surgery were compared. Provincial vital statistics and administrative hospital readmission data were used to analyse long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Operative mortality [3.2% f-IMA vs 1.9% in situ IMA; odds ratio = 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.91-3.52] and the majority of postoperative adverse events were not significantly different among matched patients. The risk of late death was not significantly different between the 2 matched groups (hazard ratio = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.92-1.41, P = 0.15). The risk of hospital readmission for cardiovascular reasons was significantly higher in the f-IMA group (54.5% vs 47.3%, odds ratio = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.10-1.72), although repeat revascularization (18.4% vs 13.5%; odds ratio = 1.53, 95% CI = 0.96-2.44) was not significantly different between the matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Late survival and the need for repeat coronary revascularization were not influenced by using the IMA as a free graft to the LAD. However, there is a small but significant increase in the risk of hospital readmission for cardiac reasons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".