MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386139226 · doi:10.4236/wjcd.2023.138043

Long-Term Outcomes after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting with Risk Stratification

2023· article· en· W4386139226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ayman R. Abdelrehim, Ibraheem H. Al Harbi, Hasan I. Sandogji, Faisal Al-Nasser, Mohammad Nizam S. H. Uddin, F. Taha, Fareed A. Alnozaha, Fath A. Alabsi, Shakir Ahmed, Waheed M. Fouda, Amir A. El Said, Tousif Khan, Ahmed M. Shabaan

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChest painRevascularizationIncidence (geometry)Univariate analysisLogistic regressionCoronary artery bypass surgeryMaceArteryBypass graftingMedical recordCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyStepwise regressionHeart failureRetrospective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicinePercutaneous coronary interventionMultivariate analysisAnginaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Risk stratification of long-term outcomes for patients undergoing Coronary artery bypass grafting has enormous potential clinical importance. Aim: To develop risk stratification models for predicting long-term outcomes following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Methods: We retrospectively revised the electronic medical records of 2330 patients who underwent adult Cardiac surgery between August 2016 and December 2022 at Madinah Cardiac Center, Saudi Arabia. Three hundred patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria of CABG operations with a complete follow-up period of at least 24 months, and data reporting. The collected data included patient demographics, comorbidities, laboratory data, pharmacotherapy, echocardiographic parameters, procedural details, postoperative data, in-hospital outcomes, and follow-up data. Our follow-up was depending on the clinical status (NYHA class), chest pain recurrence, medication dependence and echo follow-up. A univariate analysis was performed between each patient risk factor and the long-term outcome to determine the preoperative, operative, and postoperative factors significantly associated with each long-term outcome. Then a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed with a stepwise, forward selection procedure. Significant (p Results: The incidence of all-cause mortality during hospital admission or follow-up period was 2.3%. Other long-term outcomes included all-cause recurrent hospitalization (9.8%), recurrent chest pain (2.4%), and the need for revascularization by using a stent in 5 (3.0%) patients. Thirteen (4.4%) patients suffered heart failure and they were on the maximum anti-failure medications. The model for predicting all-cause mortality included the preoperative EF ≤ 35% (AOR: 30.757, p = 0.061), the bypass time (AOR: 1.029, p = 0.003), and the duration of ventilation following the operation (AOR: 1.237, p = 0.021). The model for risk stratification of recurrent hospitalization comprised the preoperative EF ≤ 35% (AOR: 6.198, p p = 0.023), low postoperative cardiac output (AOR: 3.622, p = 0.007), and the development of postoperative atrial fibrillation (AOR: 2.787, p = 0.038). Low postoperative cardiac output was the only predictor that significantly contributed to recurrent chest pain (AOR: 11.66, p = 0.004). Finally, the model consisted of low postoperative cardiac output (AOR: 5.976, p p = 0.019) was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of the future need for revascularization using a stent. Conclusions: A risk prediction model was developed in a Saudi cohort for predicting all-cause mortality risk during both hospital admission and the follow-up period of at least 24 months after isolated CABG surgery. A set of models were also developed for predicting long-term risks of all-cause recurrent hospitalization, recurrent chest pain, heart failure, and the need for revascularization by using stents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Cardiovascular DiseasesSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207