Comparative Analysis of Early Postoperative Period in Patients with Total Arterial Revascularization and Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of total arterial myocardial revascularization in patients with multivessel lesions of the coronary arteries has a number of advantages, namely the duration of functioning or patency of the grafts. The level of total arterial myocardial revascularization implementation in developed and developing countries remains quite low. The aim. Based on the analysis of our own experience, to determine the influence of the technique of total arterial revascularization on the frequency of complications in the early postoperative period. Materials and methods. From February 22, 2016 to December 24, 2020, 390 consecutive patients were operated at the Ukrainian Children’s Cardiac Center. The patients were divided into two groups: participants of the group I underwent total arterial myocardial revascularization, and those includedin the group II underwent conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The inclusion criteria were: ischemic heart disease, stable angina or exertional angina, multivascular coronary artery disease, absence of valvular pathology. Results. There was zero 30-day mortality in both groups. The frequency of postoperative bleeding was higher in group II and amounted to 1.6%. Surgical wound complications (infection) were also more common in the group II: 1.2% versus 0.69% (p=0.906) in the group I. Similarly, laboratory parameters such as the level of creatine kinase-MB were almost identical. Conclusions. Total arterial myocardial revascularization is a safe method with good immediate results. The frequency of complications in total arterial myocardial revascularizationdoes not differ from that in conventional CABG. For a wider application of the total arterial myocardial revascularization,it is necessary to continue toconduct studies of the remote postoperative period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".