MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289885528 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezac403

Clinical event rate in patients with and without left main disease undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: results from the European DuraGraft Registry

2022· article· en· W4289885528 on OpenAlexaff
Etem Caliskan, Martín Misfeld, Sigrid Sandner, Andreas Böning, José I. Aramendi, Sacha P. Salzberg, Yeong‐Hoon Choi, Louis P. Perrault, İlker Tekin, Gregorio Cuerpo, José López Menéndez, Luca Weltert, J Böhm, Markus Krane, José María González‐Santos, Juan-Carlos Tellez, Tomáš Holubec, Enrico Ferrari, Maximilian Y. Emmert, Katharina Huenges, Herko Grubitzsch, Farhad Bakthiary, Jörg Kempfert, Adam Penkalla, Bernhard C. Danner, Fawad A Jebran, Carina Benstoem, Andreas Goetzenich, Christian Stoppe, Elmar Kuhn, Oliver J. Liakopoulos, Stefan Brose, Klaus Matschke, Dave Veerasingam, Kishore Doddakula, Lorenzo Guerrieri Wolf, Giuseppe Filiberto Serraino, Pasquale Mastroroberto, Nicola Lamascese, M. Sella, Edmundo R Fajardo-Rodriguez, Alejandro Crespo, Angel L Fernandez Gonález, Álvaro Pedraz, Elena Arnáiz-García, Ignacio Muñoz Carvajal, Adrian J Fontaine, J.R. González Rodríguez, José Antonio Corrales Mera, Paloma Martı́nez, José Antonio Blázquez González, Bella Ramirez, Alejandro Adsuar-Gómez, Jose M Borrego-Dominguez, Christian Muñoz-Guijosa, Sara Badía-Gamarra, Rafael Sádaba, Alicia Gainza, Manuel Castellà, Gregorio Laguna, Javier A Gualis, Stefanos Demertzis, Jürg Grünenfelder, Robert Bauernschmitt, Amal Bose, Nawwar Al‐Attar, George Gradinariu

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBypass graftingMedicineArteryCardiologyLeft main coronary artery diseaseInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseDiseaseGraftingEvent (particle physics)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is considered an independent risk factor for clinical events after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We have conducted a subgroup analysis of the multicentre European DuraGraft Registry to investigate clinical event rates at 1 year in patients with and without LMCAD undergoing isolated CABG in contemporary practice. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated CABG were selected. The primary end point was the incidence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or repeat revascularization (RR) at 1 year. The secondary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) defined as MACE plus stroke. Propensity score matching was performed to balance for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: LMCAD was present in 1033 (41.2%) and absent in 1477 (58.8%) patients. At 1 year, the MACE rate was higher for LMCAD patients (8.2% vs 5.1%, P = 0.002) driven by higher rates of death (5.4% vs 3.4%, P = 0.016), MI (3.0% vs 1.3%, P = 0.002) and numerically higher rates of RR (2.8% vs 1.8%, P = 0.13). The incidence of MACCE was 8.8% vs 6.6%, P = 0.043, with a stroke rate of 1.0% and 2.4%, P = 0.011, for the LMCAD and non-LMCAD groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, the MACE rate was 8.0% vs 5.2%, P = 0.015. The incidence of death was 5.1% vs 3.7%, P = 0.10, MI 3.0% vs 1.4%, P = 0.020, and RR was 2.7% vs 1.6%, P = 0.090, for the LMCAD and non-LMCAD groups, respectively. Less strokes occurred in LMCAD patients (1.0% vs 2.4%, P = 0.017). The MACCE rate was not different, 8.5% vs 6.7%, P = 0.12. CONCLUSIONS: In this large registry, LMCAD was demonstrated to be an independent risk factor for MACE after isolated CABG. Conversely, the risk of stroke was lower in LMCAD patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02922088.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207