MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14448: On-Table Extubation Associated With Lower Resource Utilization and Non-Inferior Outcomes After Coronary Bypass

2022· article· en· W4380836489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stacey Telenson, Fady Soliman, Ronald Vertsman, Benjamin Basseri, Antonio Chiricolo, Enrique J. Pantin, Anthony Lemaire, Hirohisa Ikegami, Mark J. Russo, Leonard Y. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuartileIntensive care unitCardiac surgeryMechanical ventilationUnivariate analysisCoronary artery diseaseRetrospective cohort studyCoronary artery bypass surgeryCanadian Cardiovascular SocietySurgeryAnesthesiaArteryCardiologyInternal medicineMultivariate analysisAnginaConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Minimizing the duration of postoperative ventilation facilitates early discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) thus promoting enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery (ERAS). Hence, we sought to investigate the impact of on-table extubation on outcomes and resource utilization after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected local database, including all patients undergoing CABG surgery at a large academic center from January 2020 to December 2021. Patients were stratified into two groups, on-table (before leaving the operating room) extubation versus early (< 6 hours after procedure) extubation. In-hospital mortality and postoperative complications were compared using univariate analyses. Length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission and high resource utilization (HRU), a binary outcome defined as direct procedure cost of the highest quartile, were investigated. Results: A total of 691 patients were included in our analysis, 267 (38.6%) of which were extubated on-table. The two groups had similar median age and preoperative ejection fractions. However, on-table extubation patients were more likely to be males (86.9% vs 76.6%, p<0.001) with smaller BMIs (27.7% vs 28.5%, p=0.002), lower STS risk scores (0.75% vs 0.95%, p=0.022) and lower cerebrovascular disease prevalence (8.2% vs 14.2%, p=0.017). Compared to early extubation, on-table extubation patients had similar rates of in-hospital mortality (0 % vs 1.4 %, p=0.051), postoperative blood transfusion (7.5% vs 9.0%, p=0.494), reintubation (2.6% vs 3.5%, p=0.499) and pneumonia (1.9% vs 3.3%, p=0.263). As hypothesized, on-table extubation patients had shorter ICU LOS (32hrs vs 39hrs, p=0.02), shorter postoperative LOS (4.9 days vs 5.9 days, p=0.003), and lower incidence of high resource utilization (18.0% vs 29.5%, p<0.001). ICU readmission (3.8% vs 3.5%, p=0.887) and 30-day readmission (5.2% vs 7.3%, p=0.277) were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: On-table extubation is a safe and effective ERAS practice, that is associated with lower ICU LOS, postoperative LOS, and resource utilization, without affecting rates of reintubation, ICU readmission, 30-day readmission or operative mortality.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques→French-language works237,207→