Impact of on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on 10-year mortality versus percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The very long-term mortality of off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a randomized complex coronary artery disease population is unknown. This study aims to investigate the impact of on-pump and off-pump CABG versus PCI on 10-year all-cause mortality. METHODS: The SYNTAX trial randomized 1800 patients with three-vessel and/or left main coronary artery disease to PCI or CABG and assessed their survival at 10 years. In this sub-study, the hazard of mortality over 10 years was compared according to the technique of revascularization: on-pump CABG (n = 725), off-pump CABG (n = 128) and PCI (n = 903). RESULTS: There was substantial inter-site variation in the use of off-pump CABG despite baseline characteristics being largely homogeneous among the 3 groups. The crude rate of mortality was significantly lower following on-pump CABG versus PCI [25.6% vs 28.4%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.96], while it was comparable between off-pump CABG and PCI (28.5% vs 28.4%, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.69-1.40). After adjusting for the 9 variables included in the SYNTAX score II 2020, 10-year mortality remained significantly lower with on-pump CABG than PCI (HR 0.75 against PCI, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In the SYNTAXES trial, 10-year mortality adjusted for major confounders was significantly lower following on-pump CABG compared to PCI. There was no evidence for unadjusted difference between off-pump CABG and PCI, although the unadjusted estimated HR had a wide CI. Site heterogeneity in the technique used in bypass surgery has had measurable effects on treatment performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".