Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting is safe and effective in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Severe left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) is associated with increased risk following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Due to a dearth of reports on the choice of CABG technique in patients with LVD, this study aims to compare the outcomes of off-pump CABG (OPCAB) and conventional CABG (ONCAB) in such patients. METHODS: Retrospective single-centre propensity-matched analysis comparing early- and long-term outcomes of OPCAB and ONCAB in patients with severe LVD. Primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2014, a total of 1161 consecutive patients with severe LVD underwent isolated CABG [442 patients underwent OPCAB and 719 ONCAB (430 matched pairs)]. Incomplete revascularization was observed more frequently among OPCAB than ONCAB patients (35.3% vs 21.6%; P < 0.01). The overall 30-day mortality was 5% and was comparable between the matched groups [OR 0.64 (0.34-1.22); P = 0.18]. OPCAB patients had shorter median hospital stay (11 vs 12 days; P = 0.02) and lower packed red blood cell transfusion rates [2.7 (2.21-3.19) vs 4.4 (3.56-5.24); P < 0.01]. Estimated adjusted survival was 86.0% vs 85.8%, 69.1% vs 65.5% and 59.9% vs 49.1% at 1, 5 and 10 years for OPCAB and ONCAB patients, respectively (P = 0.99). Long-term risk of mortality was similar between groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.94 (0.66-1.32); P = 0.7]. Incomplete revascularization was weakly associated with increased risk of long-term all-cause mortality [HR 1.33 (0.99-1.77); P = 0.05]. CONCLUSIONS: OPCAB is safe and effective in patients with severe LVD. Although incomplete revascularization is more commonly observed in patients undergoing OPCAB, it is not associated with increased late mortality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".