A systematic review and meta-analysis of coronary artery disease and revascularization in lung transplant patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in candidates for lung transplantation (LTx) and has historically been considered a relative contraindication to transplantation. We look to review the outcomes of LTx in patients with CAD and determine the optimum revascularization strategy in LTx candidates. PubMed, Medline and Web of Science were systematically searched by three authors for articles comparing the outcomes of LTx in patients with CAD and receiving coronary revascularization. In total 1668 articles were screened and 12 were included in this review.Preexisting CAD in LTx recipients was not associated with significantly increased postoperative morbidity or mortality. The pooled estimates of mortality rate at 1, 3 and 5 years indicated significantly inferior survival in LTx recipients with a prior history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) [odds ratio (OR), 1.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.53-2.22; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%; OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.21-1.91; P = 0.0003; I2 = 0%; OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.13-2.33; P = 0.008; I2 = 71%, respectively). However, contemporary literature suggests that survival rates in LTx recipients with CAD that received revascularization either by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), previous or concomitant CABG, are similar to patients who did not receive revascularization. Trends in postoperative morbidity favored CABG in the rates of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization, whereas rates of stroke favored PCI. The composite results of this study support the consideration of patients with CAD or previous coronary revascularization for LTx. Prospective, randomized controlled trials with consistent patient populations and outcomes reporting are required to fully elucidate the optimum revascularization strategy in LTx candidates.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".