Right internal thoracic or radial artery as the second arterial conduit for coronary artery bypass surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the available evidence on the use of the right internal thoracic artery (RITA) and the radial artery as the second arterial graft in coronary artery bypass surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: The current data support the equipoise of the two conduits in terms of clinical and angiographic outcomes. Both RITA and radial artery have better patency than saphenous vein grafts. The use of the RITA carries an increased risk of deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) if the artery is harvested as pedicle. Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting is more technically demanding than radial artery use and there is a volume-outcome relationship in terms of mortality and incidence of DSWI. The radial artery is preferable over RITA in right-sided or distal circumflex artery targets with high-degree stenosis and in patients at higher risk for DSWI, whereas it is not recommended to graft vessels with moderate stenosis and in cases of insufficient collateralization from the ulnar artery or previous transradial procedures. SUMMARY: The patency rate and clinical outcomes of radial artery and RITA are similar. The use of one or the other should be based on a careful evaluation of the patient's coronary anatomy and comorbidities, the conduit availability and the surgeon's and center's experience.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".