Combined Left Ventricular Assist Device and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: Should We Bypass the Bypass?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become a mainstay of therapy for advanced heart failure. Although selected patients undergo concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at the time of LVAD implantation, the detailed implication of this combined surgical approach is not yet well studied. In this study, all ischemic cardiomyopathy patients who underwent concomitant CABG during LVAD implantation between 2010 and 2016 were enrolled. A control group matching for age, gender, and device type, were selected. Of 79 LVAD patients finally included, 28 patients underwent concomitant CABG (CABG group); whereas 51 did not (non-CABG group). There was no difference in the baseline characteristics between groups. There was a trend toward longer cardiopulmonary bypass time in the CABG group (169 vs. 147 min; p = 0.09). One month survival in the CABG group was significantly lower than the non-CABG group (75.0% vs. 94.1%; p = 0.014). No difference in the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias was detected between the groups, nor was there a difference in the incidence or severity of right ventricular failure. Concomitant CABG surgery during LVAD implantation may carry significant perioperative mortality, and addition of CABG to LVAD surgery may be performed only in strictly selected cases.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it