MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974316782 · doi:10.7759/cureus.5670

Assessing the Long-term Patency and Clinical Outcomes of Venous and Arterial Grafts Used in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-analysis

2019· article· en· W2974316782 on OpenAlex
Abdül Waheed, Emily S. Klosterman, Joseph Lee, Ankita Mishra, Vijay Narasimha, Faiz Tuma, Faran Bokhari, Furqan Haq, Subhasis Misra

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrandon Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal thoracic arteryArteryCardiologySurgeryInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialRadial arteryGastroepiploic ArteryConfidence intervalBypass graftingMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The long-term patency of the grafts used during the coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is one of the most significant predictors of the clinical outcomes. The gold standard graft used during CABG with the best long-term patency rate and the better clinical outcomes is left internal thoracic artery (LITA) grafted to the left coronary artery (LCA). The controversy lies in choosing the second-best conduit for the non-left coronary artery (NLCA) with similar patency rate as LITA. This meta-analysis examines the long-term patency and clinical outcomes of all arterial grafts versus all venous grafts used during the CABG. Methods A comprehensive literature search of all published randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing long-term patency and clinical outcomes of grafts used in CABG was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar (1966-2018). Keywords searched included combinations of "CABG", "venous grafts in CABG", "arterial grafts in CABG", "radial artery grafts in CABG", "gastroepiploic artery grafts in CABG", "patency and clinical outcomes". Inclusion criteria included: RCTs comparing the long-term patency, and clinical outcomes of radial artery, right internal thoracic artery, gastroduodenal artery, and saphenous vein grafts used in CABG. Long-term patency of the grafts and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results Eight RCTs involving 2,091 patients with 1,164 patients receiving arterial grafts and 927 patients receiving venous grafts were included. There was no difference between the long-term patency rate (relative risk (RR) = 1.050, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.949 to 1.162, and p = 0.344), overall mortality rate (RR = 1.095, 95% CI = 0.561 to 2.136, and p = 0.790), rate of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR = 0.860, 95% CI = 0.409 to 1.812, and P = 0.692), and re-intervention rate (RR = 0.0768, 95% CI = 0.419 to 1.406, and P = 0.392) between arterial and venous grafts. Conclusion The use of arterial conduits over the venous conduits has no significant superiority regarding the long-term graft patency, the rate of MI, overall mortality, and the rate of revascularization following CABG. Additional adequately powered studies are needed to further evaluate the long-term outcomes of arterial and venous grafts following the CABG.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it