Coronary Artery Disease and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting at the Time of Lung Transplantation Do Not Impact Overall Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in lung transplant candidates and may require revascularization before or at the time of their transplant. We reviewed the survival of lung transplant recipients with CAD requiring surgical intervention (CAD-coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) and those who did not (CAD-NoCABG) at the time of transplant, compared to a cohort with no CAD (NoCAD). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients transplanted in our program between 2004 and 2013. Our primary outcome was the association between 3-way CAD status (CAD-CABG, CAD-NoCABG, NoCAD) and overall retransplant-free survival via proportional hazards modeling, adjusting for age, gender, and transplant indication. Secondary endpoints included 1-year survival, survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis, duration of ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 333 patients underwent transplant during the study timeframe. A total of 24 (7%) had CAD requiring CABG, 82 (25%) had CAD not requiring CABG, and the remaining 227 had no CAD. The 3-way CAD status was not associated with overall retransplant-free survival after adjustment for age, gender, and transplant indication. Duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay and hospitalization were longer in both CAD groups compared with the NoCAD group. CONCLUSIONS: CAD status does not impact overall retransplant-free survival, despite greater perioperative complexity. Prospective studies comparing treatment strategies in these patient groups are warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".