Prediction of Male Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Outcomes Using Body Surface Area Weighted Left Ventricular End-diastolic Diameter: Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of a high left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) has been linked to a less favorable outcome in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures. However, by taking into consideration the reference of left ventricular size and volume measurements relative to the patient's body surface area (BSA), it has been suggested that the accuracy of the predicting outcomes may be improved. OBJECTIVE: We propose that BSA weighted LVEDD (bLVEDD) is a more accurate predictor of outcomes in patients undergoing CABG compared to simply using LVEDD alone. METHODS: This study was a comprehensive retrospective cohort study that was conducted across multiple medical centers. The inclusion criteria for this study were patients who were admitted for treatment between October 2016 and May 2021. Only elective surgery patients were included in the study, while those undergoing emergency surgery were not considered. All participants in the study received standard care, and their clinical data were collected through the institutional registry in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Adult Cardiac Database. bLVEDD was defined as LVEDD divided by BSA. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality (30 days), and the secondary outcomes were postoperative severe adverse events, including use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, multiorgan failure, use of intra-aortic balloon pump, postoperative stroke, and postoperative myocardial infarction. RESULTS: In total, 9474 patients from 5 centers under the Chinese Cardiac Surgery Registry were eligible for analysis. We found that a high LVEDD was a negative factor for male patients' mortality (odds ratio 1.44, P<.001) and secondary outcomes. For female patients, LVEDD was associated with secondary outcomes but did not reach statistical differences for morality. bLVEDD showed a strong association with postsurgery mortality (odds ratio 2.70, P<.001), and secondary outcomes changed in parallel with bLVEDD in male patients. However, bLVEDD did not reach statistical differences when fitting either mortality or severer outcomes in female patients. In male patients, the categorical bLVEDD showed high power to predict mortality (area under the curve [AUC] 0.71, P<.001) while BSA (AUC 0.62) and LVEDD (AUC 0.64) both contributed to the risk of mortality but were not as significant as bLVEDD (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: bLVEDD is an important predictor for male mortality in CABG, removing the bias of BSA and showing a strong capability to accurately predict mortality outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02400125; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02400125.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".