Multiarterial coronary grafting using the radial artery as a second arterial graft: how far does the survival benefit extend?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the 10-year results of the Arterial Revascularization Trial, the controversy regarding the survival benefit of multiarterial grafting (MAG) remains. Our goal was to present our long-term survival data in this propensity-matched observational study. METHODS: A primary unmatched population of 4303 patients with first-time isolated coronary artery bypass grafts operated on between 2000 and 2018 were included. A total of 1187 post-matched patients were compared with matched controls. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analyses were undertaken to assess the contribution of MAG and other covariates to the long-term survival of unmatched and propensity-matched populations. RESULTS: MAG was associated with increased median survival in both the unmatched and the matched groups; difference: 962 and 1459 days, log-rank tests; P = 0.029 and 0.0004, respectively. MAG was associated with a reduced hazard of death in the unmatched as well as in the matched groups: hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.72 (0.62-0.83); P < 0.0001 and 0.75 (0.64-0.88); P ≤ 0.0001, respectively. In the matched group, the prosurvival factors were low logistic EuroSCORE, obesity, no intra-aortic balloon pump, an ejection fraction >30%, age 50-69 years, operation by an experienced surgeon, with and without diabetes, on-pump surgery and 3 distal anastomoses. In a cohort of 242 late-presenting patients with reinfarction or recurrent angina, both MAG and control populations were associated with reduced median survival; median (95% CI): MAG: 3026 (1138-3503); control: 3035 (2134-3991), log-rank P = 0.217 with superior patency of the left internal mammary artery but no difference between radial artery and saphenous vein grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Multiarterial revascularization, especially using the radial artery as a second arterial conduit, is associated with a significant survival benefit and a lack of in-hospital morbidity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".