Impact of preoperative fractional flow reserve on arterial bypass graft anastomotic function: the IMPAG trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Visual estimation is the most commonly used method to evaluate the degree of coronary artery stenosis prior to coronary artery bypass grafting. In interventional cardiology, the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decisions has become routine. We investigated whether the preoperative FFR measurement of coronary lesions is associated with anastomosis function 6 months after surgical revascularization using a multiarterial grafting strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective double-blind study, 67 patients were enrolled from two institutions in Europe and Canada. From these patients, 199 coronary lesions were assessed visually and with FFR at the time of the preoperative angiogram. All patients received coronary revascularization using multiple arterial grafts. A post-operative 6-month angiogram was performed to assess anastomosis functionality using a described angiographic method. The primary outcome was the association between preoperative FFR values and anastomosis function 6 months after surgery. Preoperative FFR was significantly associated with 6-months anastomotic function for all conduits and for all targets (P < 0.001). An FFR value of ≤0.78 was associated with an anastomotic occlusion rate of 3%. CONCLUSION: We found a significant association between the preoperative FFR measurement of the target vessel and the anastomotic functionality at 6 months, with a cut-off of 0.78. Integration of FFR measurement into the preoperative diagnostic workup before multiarterial coronary surgical revascularization leads to improved anastomotic graft function. CLINICAL TRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02527044.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".