Mid-Term Clinical Outcome of Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting with Valvulotomized Vein Grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lower patency rate of vein grafts (VG) in comparison to arterial grafts may be related to vein valves, which favor turbulences and thrombosis that lead to graft failure. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of patients with valvulotomized VG after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedure. METHODS: From 2007 to 2014, 233 patients with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years had CABG or combined CABG and valve procedures. Valvulotomized saphenous VG and arterial grafts were used. Clinical follow-up and outcome were evaluated after 6.3 ± 2 years. The graft patency was rated with multislice computed tomography in 57 patients and coronary angiography in 29 patients 3.1 ± 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: Overall, 168 patients had segregated CABG surgery, and 65 patients received additional procedures, with mean 2.7 ± 1 arterial and 1.5 ± 0.7 venous anastomoses. The 30-day-mortality in isolated CABG patients was 2%. Survival at five years was 80%. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) free rate at five years was 80%. At the last follow up (mean 6.3 years), 94% of the patients were in Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class 0. The quote of patent valvulotomized VG was 96.1% compared to a patency rate of 96.7% for the arterial grafts in the subgroup undergoing angiography or computed tomography of the heart. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate good mid-term results of graft patency, and comparable clinical results in patients undergoing CABG with valvulotomized VG. A longer follow-up period and a higher number of bypass graft imaging examinations are necessary to affirm our results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".