Effect of remote ischemic preconditioning on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment after off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG). Methods Sixty patients with OPCABG were enrolled, aged 65-80 years old, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade II or III, judged as MCI by preoperative Montreal Scale (MoCA), Simple Intelligence Status Scale (MMSE), Dementia Scale (CDR), and the Daily Living Ability Scale (ADL). The patients were divided into 2 groups by random number table method: control group (group C, n=30) and RIPC group (group R, n=30). In group R, 5 minutes after induction of anesthesia, a manometry cuff was used to give 3 cycles of 5 min ischemia (cuff inflation, pressure ≥200 mmHg) and 5 min reperfusion (cuff deflation to 0 mmHg) treatment; in group C, the cuff was tied to the patients' right upper limb, but did not inflate and deflate. The cognitive function was evaluated by MoCA and MMSE at 1 day before surgery (T0), 7 days (T1) and 30 days (T2) after surgery. Results Compared with T0, MMSE and MoCA scores were decreased at T1 in both two groups [(25.2±0.7) vs.(21.4±0.6), (25.5±0.8) vs.(22.3±0.7), (21.8±0.7) vs.(18.2±0.7), (22.0±1.0) vs.(19.4±0.8), all P<0.05]. Compared with T1, MMSE and MoCA scores of both two groups were increased at T2 [(21.4±0.6) vs.(22.8±0.9), (22.3±0.7) vs.(23.6±0.8), (18.2±0.7) vs.(19.5±0.8), (19.4±0.8) vs.(20.7±0.9), all P<0.05]. MMSE and MoCA scores in group R were higher than those in C group from T1 to T2 (all P<0.05). Conclusion RIPC can improve cognitive function within 30 days after OPCABG in MCI patients. Key words: Remote ischemic preconditioning; Off-pump; Heart surgery; Cognitive function; Postoperative complications
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".