Single versus bilateral mammary artery grafts in the setting of off-pump coronary revascularization: Survival benefit with bilateral mammary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare postoperative and long-term results (angina, myocardial and cerebrovascular events and coronary re-intervention) using single versus bilateral internal mammary arteries (SIMA vs. BIMA) in the setting of off-pump revascularisation (OPCAB) within a single-surgeon practice. METHODS Retrospective analysis of all isolated OPCAB performed in our institution by a single surgeon in the last 12 years.Two groups were analysed: SIMA (n = 681) and BIMA (n = 342). A propensity score matching was performed to compare the groups, reducing the sample to 684 patients.Follow-up (mean 6.5 ± 3.5 years) was done by telephone interviews or clinical visits, registering also late mortality and coronary re-intervention. Outcomes were compared to literature. RESULTS Demographic characteristics differed between groups, with BIMA offered predominantly to non-diabetic younger males (mean 59.4 years) with less comorbidity. In-hospital mortality was 2% for the SIMA group and 1% for BIMA (p = 0.18). Long-term mortality was also higher for the SIMA group (2% vs. 1% at 1 year, p = 0.22 and 16% vs. 5% at 5 years, p < 0.001). Sternal wound infection was similar in both groups (2-3%). Long-term follow-up revealed good freedom from angina (94%) with low rates of neurological and myocardial events (3%) or need for repeated revascularisation (3%) in both groups. CONCLUSION BIMA offers long-term survival benefit with similar postoperative complications. Rates of deep sternal wound infection were comparable between the two groups.Excellent outcomes can be achieved with OPCAB BIMA in real world practice with adequate patient selection.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".