A novel endothelial damage inhibitor for the treatment of vascular conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting: protocol and rationale for the European, multicentre, prospective, observational DuraGraft registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vein graft disease (VGD) impairs graft patency rates and long-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). DuraGraft is a novel endothelial-damage inhibitor developed to efficiently protect the structural and functional integrity of the vascular endothelium. The DuraGraft registry will evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of DuraGraft in patients undergoing CABG procedures. METHODS: This ongoing multicentre, prospective observational registry will enrol 3000 patients undergoing an isolated CABG procedure or a combined procedure (ie, CABG plus valve surgery or other surgery) with at least one saphenous vein grafts or one free arterial graft (ie, radial artery or mammary artery). If a patient is enrolled, all free grafts (SVG and arterial will be treated with DuraGraft. Data on baseline, clinical, and angiographic characteristics as well as procedural and clinical events will be collected. The primary outcome measure is the occurrence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE; defined as death, non-fatal myocardial-infarction, or need for repeat-revascularisation). Secondary outcome measures are the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; defined as death, non-fatal myocardial-infarction, repeat-revascularisation, or stroke), patient-reported quality of life, and health-economic data. Patient assessments will be performed during hospitalisation, at 1-month, 1-year, and annually thereafter to 5 years post-CABG. Events will be adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. This European, multi-institutional registry will provide detailed insights into clinical outcome associated with DuraGraft. DISCUSSION: This European, multi-institutional registry will provide detailed insights into clinical outcome associated with the use of DuraGraft. Beyond that, and given the comprehensive data sets comprising of patient, procedural, and graft parameters that are being collected, the registry will enable for multiple subgroup analyses targeting focus groups or specific clinical questions. These may include analysis of subpopulations such as patients with diabetes or multimorbid high-risk patients (patient level), evaluation of relevance of harvesting technique including endoscopic versus open conduit harvesting (procedural level), or particular graft-specific aspects (conduit level). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02922088 . Registered October 3, 2016. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The regional ethics committees have approved the registry. Results will be submitted for publication.
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 | 0.046 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".