Peer Review Report For: A multicentre review comparing long term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Utilisation of the Endoscopic Vein Harvesting (EVH) technique has been increasing for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the last two decades. Some surgeons remain concerned about the long-term patency of the long saphenous vein harvested endoscopically compared to traditional Open Vein Harvesting (OVH). The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of the outcomes between EVH and OVH from three UK centres with 10 years follow-up. Methods: 27,024 patients underwent CABG with long saphenous vein harvested by EVH (n=13,794) or OVH (n=13,230) in three UK centres between 2007 and 2019. Propensity modelling was used to calculate the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weights (IPTW). The primary endpoint was mortality from all causes and secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and incidence of repeat coronary re-vascularisation for symptomatic patients. IPTW was used to balance the two intervention groups for baseline and preoperative co-morbidities. Results: Median follow-up time was 4.54 years for EVH and 6.00 years for OVH. Death from any cause occurred in 13.8% of the EVH group versus 20.8% in the OVH group over the follow-up period. The hazard ratio of death (EVH to OVH) was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.767, 0.884). Length of hospital stay was similar between the groups (p=0.86). Post-operative pulmonary complications were more common in EVH vs OVH (14.7% vs. 12.8%, p<0.001), but repeat coronary re-vascularisation was similar between the groups. Conclusion: This large retrospective multicentre analysis indicates that EVH has a lower risk of mortality compared with OVH during the follow-up period of the study. The observed benefits of EVH may outweigh the risks but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We hope this review gives confidence to other cardiac centres that offering an EVH approach to conduit harvesting does not affect long term patient outcomes.
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 | 0.045 | 0.317 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.061 |
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".