Radial artery versus saphenous vein versus right internal thoracic artery for coronary artery bypass grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We used individual patient data from 4 of the largest contemporary coronary bypass surgery trials to evaluate differences in long-term outcomes when radial artery (RA), right internal thoracic artery (RITA) or saphenous vein graft (SVG) are used to complement the left internal thoracic artery-to-left anterior descending graft. METHODS: Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke). Propensity score matching and Cox regression were used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias and confounders. RESULTS: A total of 10 256 patients (1510 RITA; 1385 RA; 7361 SVG) were included. The matched population consisted of 1776 propensity score-matched triplets. The mean follow-up was 7.9 ± 0.1, 7.8 ± 0.1 and 7.8 ± 0.1 years in the RITA, RA and SVG cohorts respectively. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the RA versus the SVG [hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.76, P = 0.003] and the RITA group (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.71, P = 0.001). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rate was also lower in the RA group versus the SVG (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.90, P = 0.04) and the RITA group (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86, P = 0.02). Results were consistent in the Cox-adjusted analysis and solid to hidden confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis of 4 large coronary bypass surgery trials, the use of the RA was associated with better clinical outcomes when compared to SVG and RITA.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".