MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223571972 · doi:10.1186/s13019-022-01815-9

Fast tracking in cardiac surgery: is it safe?

2022· article· en· W4223571972 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiothoracic Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface HospitalSaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac surgeryIntensive care unitPropensity score matchingCardiothoracic surgeryStroke (engine)Fast trackAtrial fibrillationSurgeryCoronary artery diseaseRetrospective cohort studyCardiologyCoronary artery bypass surgeryPopulationInternal medicineArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: While fast track clinical pathways have been demonstrated to reduce resource utilization in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, it remains unclear as to whether they adversely affect post-operative outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of fast tracking on post-operative outcomes following cardiac surgery. METHODS: In a retrospective study, all patients undergoing first-time, on-pump, non-emergent coronary artery bypass grafting, valve, or coronary artery bypass grafting + valve at a single centre between 2010 and 2017 were included. Patients were considered to have been fast tracked if they were extubated and transferred from intensive care to a step-down unit on the same day as their procedure. The risk-adjusted effect of fast tracking on a 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, renal failure, infection, atrial fibrillation, and readmission to hospital was determined. Furthermore, propensity score matching was used to match fasting track patients in a 1-to-1 manner with their nearest "neighbor" in the control group and subsequently compared in terms of 30-day post-operative outcomes. RESULTS: 3252 patients formed the final study population (fast track: n = 245; control: n = 3007). Patients who were fast tracked experienced reduced time to initial extubation (4.3 vs. 5.6 h, p < 0.0001) and lower median initial intensive care unit length of stay (7.8 vs. 20.4 h, p < 0.0001). Fast tracked patients experienced lower 30-day rates of the composite outcome (42.4% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.008). However, following propensity score matching, fast tracked patients experienced similar 30-day rates of the composite outcome as the control group (42.4% vs. 44.5%, p = 0.72). After risk adjustment using multivariable regression modeling, fast tracking was predictive of an improved 30-day composite outcome (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.98, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Fast track clinical pathways was associated with reduced intensive care unit, overall length of stay and similar 30-day post-operative outcomes. These results suggest that fast tracking appropriate patients may reduce resource utilization, while maintaining patient safety.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it