Conventional Off-Pump Coronary Revascularization with Exclusive Bilateral Internal Mammary Arteries Versus Hybrid Coronary Revascularization, 10-Year Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All articles of this category (opens in new window) Background: Conventional off-pump total arterial revascularization with bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) is known to offer one of the best results for coronary revascularization but with a higher risk for sternal wound complications. On the other hand, hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a safe and less invasive strategy for achieving adequate coronary revascularization. Currently, long-term results of patients who are otherwise fit for surgery but have received hybrid revascularization are lacking. To optimize the choice of revascularization strategy for otherwise surgically fit patients, we decided to compare both strategies in a retrospective fashion. The primary focus of our comparative study is long-term survival and freedom from repeat revascularization. Methods: Patients receiving conventional off pump revascularization with bilateral internal mammary arteries ( n = 542) from 2002-2012 were historically compared in a retrospective fashion with patients receiving hybrid revascularization ( n = 123) from 2002–2020 at our institute. A 1:2 propensity score match was used to adjust for baseline confounders. After propensity matching, early postoperative results as well as long-term survival and the need for repeat revascularization were examined. Results: The median age in years of patients receiving HCR was higher (72 vs. 63, p < 0.001) than that of BIMA patients, with a higher incidence of chronic obstructive lung disease (12% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.006). On the other hand, patients receiving BIMA had a higher incidence of three-vessel coronary artery disease (49% vs. 63%, p = 0.05) as well as left main disease (11% vs. 25%, p < 0.001). These differences were adjusted for using 1:2 propensity score matching. No difference was found in early postoperative outcomes except for re-exploration for bleeding, which was higher in the HCR group (1.8% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.04). After propensity matching, 10-year survival as well as freedom from repeat revascularization were better in the BIMA arm ( p < 0.001, p = 0.014, respectively). Conclusion: For patients who are fit for surgery, conventional off pump revascularization with BIMA is associated with superior survival and freedom from repeat revascularization when compared to the hybrid strategy. 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".