Long-term Outcomes Associated With Total Arterial Revascularization vs Non–Total Arterial Revascularization
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The optimal conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial in multivessel coronary artery disease. Objective: To compare the long-term clinical outcomes of total arterial revascularization (TAR) vs non-TAR (CABG with at least 1 arterial and 1 saphenous vein graft) in a multicenter population-based study. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter population-based cohort study using propensity score matching took place from October 2008 to March 2017 in Ontario, Canada, with a mean and maximum follow-up of 4.6 and 9.0 years, respectively. Individuals with primary isolated CABG were identified, with at least 1 arterial graft. Exclusion criteria were individuals from out of province and younger than 18 years. Patients undergoing a cardiac reoperation or those in cardiogenic shock were also excluded because these conditions would potentially bias the surgeon toward not performing TAR. Analysis began April 2019. Exposures: Total arterial revascularization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to first event of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeated revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. Results: Of 49 404 individuals with primary isolated CABG, 2433 (4.9%) received TAR, with the total number of bypasses being 2, 3, and 4 or more vessels in 1521 (62.5%), 865 (35.6%), and 47 individuals (1.9%), respectively. The mean (SD) age was 61.2 (10.4) years and 1983 (81.5%) were men. After propensity score matching, 2132 patient pairs were formed, with equal total number of bypasses (mean [SD], 2.4 [0.5]) but with more arterial grafts in the TAR group (mean [SD], 2.4 [0.5] vs 1.2 [0.4]; P < .01). In-hospital death (15 [0.7%] vs 21 [1.0%]; P = .32) did not differ between TAR vs non-TAR groups after propensity score matching. Throughout 8 years, TAR was associated with improved freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89), death (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97), and myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51-0.92). There was no difference in stroke and repeated revascularization. Conclusions and Relevance: Total arterial revascularization was associated with improved long-term freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, death, and myocardial infarction and may be the procedure of choice for patients with reasonable life expectancy requiring 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it