MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391990141 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1780555

Minimal Invasive Total Arterial Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Obese Patients

2024· article· en· W4391990141 on OpenAlexaff
Rakan Shaqu, Ibrahim Gadelkarim, Wolfgang Otto, Piroze Davierwala, Martín Misfeld, Michael A. Borger, A. Verevkin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBypass graftingArteryCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineGraftingMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All articles of this category (opens in new window) Background: Minimal Invasive Total Arterial Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (MICS-CABG) is a promising surgical approach, which enables the operative treatment of coronary artery disease without median sternotomy and its complications. Obese patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher have a higher risk for sternal wound infection and would benefit more from this approach. On the contrary, these patients are usually deprived from this approach because of presumed higher technical complexity. With growing expertise, we include all patients with isolated multivessel CAD without emergent indication for MICS-CABG. In our study, we therefore compared the perioperative and mid-term outcomes of MICSCABG in obese (BMI >30) versus nonobese (BMI<30) patients. Methods: Between January 2015 and March 2023, a total of 241 patients underwent off-pump MICS-CABG via left intercostal thoracotomy in Heart Center Leipzig. Patients' data was collected prospectively and was retrospectively analyzed. For the sake of the analysis, patients were subdivided into 2 main subgroups: obese ( n = 50) and nonobese ( n = 191). Primary objectives were 30-day survival and perioperative myocardial infarction. Secondary objectives were mid-term survival and MACCE. Results: The mean age was 66 years (±7) and most of the patients were males ( n = 212). Median BMI was 26.0 (23.9–27.7) vs. 31.2 (30.8–32.3), p ≤ 0.001. Several preoperative risk factors such as Diabetes mellites pulmonary hypertension, COPD, and peripheral vascular disease were significantly higher in the obese subgroup (26% vs. 58%, p ≤ 0.001, 5.8% vs. 18%, p = 0.009, 7.3% vs. 22%, p = 0.002, 16% vs. 28%, p = 0.016 respectively) so as Euro Score II (1.70 (0.99–3.26) vs. 2.32 (1.27–3.72), p = 0.025). Length of surgery was longer in the nonobese group (250 ± 62.7 vs. 276.3 ± 63.8, p = 0.04) as they received in mean significantly greater number of distal anastomosis (2.36 vs. 2.29, p = 0.04). No intraoperative conversion to sternotomy in both groups was registered. The rate of thoracotomy for bleeding and perioperative myocardial were also similar in both groups. 30-day survival was 99.6% for the whole cohort. No difference regarding perioperative myocardial infarction was found between both arms of the study (7.3 vs. 4.0, p = 0.54). Mid-term data showed no difference in survival or MACCE rate between both groups ( p = 0.87 and p = 0.83, respectively). Conclusion: MICs-CABG is safe and feasible for obese and nonobese patients alike. Obesity should not be an exclusion criterion in high volume centers for MICs-CABG. Publication History Article published online: 13 February 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeonSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207