Effects of coronary endarterectomy on postoperative early results in long segment coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Main goal of coronary bypass surgery is complete revascularization. In some coronary endarterectomy applied patient groups, complete revascularization is inevitable. In this study, it was aimed to reveal factors affecting early mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing coronary endarterectomy.Methods: Retrospective records of preoperative, operative, and postoperative data of 98 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with coronary endarterectomy between January 1, 2012, and October 30, 2016, were reviewed.Results: A total of 113 endarterectomies were performed in different coronary arteries. Of the patients, 22 (22.4%) were female and 76 (77.6%) were male. The mean of ages was 60.4 ± 9.9 (range; 36-81 years). A positive inotropic requirement was required in 68 (69.1%) patients and intra-aortic balloon pump was required for 23 (23.4%) patients. Mortality was observed in 10 patients (10.2%). Peroperative myocardial infarction was observed in 17 (17.3%) patients. Mortality rate was significantly higher in patients whose left ventricular ejection fraction was 30 or less and who had a higher risk in EuroSCORE (p < 0.001). When compared with the other vessels, mortality ratewas found to be higher for left anterior descending coronary artery endarterectomy (p = 0.038). Mortality in female patients undergoing endarterectomy was higher than male patients (p = 0.023). Conclusions: Mortality and morbidity are higher in patients undergoing coronary endarterectomy when compared to conventional CABG operations. However, it is a method that can be applied by considering certain risk factors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".