Abstract 23086: Impact of Rivaroxaban Alone or in Combination With Aspirin versus Aspirin in Preventing Graft Occlusion in Patients With CABG Surgery COMPASS CABG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery reduces mortality in patients with severe ischemic heart disease. Patients with recent CABG surgery are at risk for early graft failure which is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and death. Aspirin reduces the risk of graft failure and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with CABG, but is only modestly effective. We hypothesized that in patients with recent CABG surgery, rivaroxaban in combination with aspirin or rivaroxaban alone would be more effective than aspirin alone for the prevention of bypass graft failure. Methods: COMPASS CABG was designed to evaluate whether rivaroxaban 2.5mg twice-daily in combination with aspirin 100mg daily or rivaroxaban 5mg twice-daily is superior to aspirin 100mg daily for prevention of bypass graft failure and vascular events in patients with recent CABG surgery. The primary outcome was graft failure and the secondary outcome was a composite of MI, stroke, or CV death. Graft patency was assessed with a CT angiogram at 1 year after surgery. Results: Between March 2013 and May 2016, the COMPASS trial randomized 27,395 patients from 602 centers in 33 countries. Of these patients, 1,488 were randomized within 4-14 days after CABG surgery. Elective CABG was performed in 78.4% of these patients. Triple vessel disease was present in 77.8% of patients, double vessel disease in 17.1% and 24.1% of patients had a left main disease. The IMA was harvested as a pedicle in 70.9% of patients and with a skeletonized technique in 29.1%. Vein grafts were harvested in an open fashion in 87.8% of patients and with a minimally invasive approach in 12.2% of patients. Conclusion: The results of COMPASS CABG will be presented on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, alone or in combination with aspirin on graft patency and MACE in the long-term management of patients with recent CABG surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".