Intraoperative transit-time flow measurement and high-frequency ultrasound in coronary artery bypass grafting: impact in off versus on-pump, arterial versus venous grafting and cardiac territory grafted
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite society guideline recommendations, intraoperative high-frequency ultrasound (HFUS) and transit-time flow measurement (TTFM) use in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has not been widely adopted worldwide. This retrospective review of the REQUEST (REgistry for QUality assESsmenT with Ultrasound Imaging and TTFM in Cardiac Bypass Surgery) study assesses the impact of protocolled high-frequency ultrasound/TTFM use in specific technical circumstances of CABG. METHODS: Three REQUEST study sub-analyses were examined: (i) For off-pump (OPCAB) versus on-pump (ONCAB) procedures: strategy changes from preoperative plans for the aorta, conduits, coronary targets and graft revisions; and for all REQUEST patients, revision rates in: (ii) arterial versus venous grafts; and (iii) grafts to different cardiac territories. RESULTS: Four hundred and two (39.6%) of 1016 patients undergoing elective isolated CABG for multivessel disease underwent OPCAB procedures. Compared to ONCAB, OPCAB patients experienced more strategy changes regarding the aorta [14.7% vs 3.4%; odds ratios (OR) = 4.03; confidence interval (CI) = 2.32-7.20], less regarding conduits (0.2% vs 2.8%; OR = 0.09; CI = 0.01-0.56), with no differences in coronary target changes or graft revisions (4.1% vs 3.5%; OR = 1.19; CI = 0.78-1.81). In all REQUEST patients, revisions were more common for arterial versus venous grafts (4.7% vs 2.4%; OR = 2.05; CI = 1.29-3.37), and inferior versus anterior (5.1% vs 2.9%; OR = 1.77; CI = 1.08-2.89) and lateral (5.1% vs 2.8%; OR = 1.83; CI = 1.04-3.27) territory grafts. CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency ultrasound/TTFM use differentially impacts strategy changes and graft revision rates in different technical circumstances of CABG. Notably, patients undergoing OPCAB experienced 4 times more changes related to the ascending aorta than ONCAB patients. These findings may indicate where intraoperative assessment is most usefully applied. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02385344.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".