Experience of post-infarction left ventricular aneurysm reconstruction with on-pump beating heart technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To evaluate the results of surgical treatment of post-infarction left ventricular aneurysms with on-pump beating heart technique. Methods. In our center from April, 2009 to January, 2014 169 patients had reconstruction of the left ventricle with on-pump beating heart technique. Among the patients 159 were males (94.1%) and 10 of them were females (5.9%), average age 53.8±8.9 years (39 to 72 years). Angina pectoris class I (according to the classification of Canadian Heart Association) was established in 7 (4.1%) patients, class II - in 49 (29.0%), class III - in 107 (63.3%), class IV - in 4 (2.4%), unstable angina in 2 (1.2%) patients. Chronic heart failure class I (according to New York Heart association functional classification) was diagnosed in 5 (3.0%) patients, class II in 37 (21.9%), class III in 124 (73.4%), class IV in 3 (1.8%) patients. Average ejection fraction of the left ventricle was 38.6±7.9% (25 to 67%). Mitral valve insufficiency stage 2-3 was revealed in 23 (13.6%) patients. Results. Endoventriculoplasty of the left ventricle by Dor's technique was performed in 49 (29.0%) patients, auto-septoplasty of the left ventricle - 59 (34.9%) patients, linear repair in 40 (23.7%) patients. Combined surgical interventions were performed in 21 (12.4%) patients. In-hospital lethality was 2.4% (n=4). Conclusion. Left ventricular reconstruction with on-pump beating heart technique without cardioplegic arest is effective and safe; the method allows performing remodelling of the left ventricle and reaching the target volume parameters.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".