Multiple arterial coronary bypass grafting is associated with greater survival in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Multiple arterial grafting (MAG) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with higher survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) in observational studies of mostly men. It is not known whether MAG is beneficial in women. Our objectives were to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of MAG versus single arterial grafting (SAG) in women undergoing CABG for multivessel disease. METHODS: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada, were linked to obtain all women with angiographic evidence of left main, triple or double vessel disease undergoing isolated non-emergent primary CABG from 2008 to 2019. 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Late mortality and MACCE (composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation and death) were compared between the matched groups with a stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: 2961 and 7954 women underwent CABG with MAG and SAG, respectively, for multivessel disease. Prior to propensity-score matching, compared with SAG, those who underwent MAG were younger (66.0 vs 68.9 years) and had less comorbidities. After propensity-score matching, in 2446 well-matched pairs, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (1.6% vs 1.8%, p=0.43) between MAG and SAG. Over a median and maximum follow-up of 5.0 and 11.0 years, respectively, MAG was associated with greater survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98) and freedom from MACCE (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: MAG was associated with greater survival and freedom from MACCE and should be considered for women with good 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".