Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (MiECS): Rationale and design of a multicentre randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionThe ultimate answer to the question whether minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) represents the optimal perfusion technique in contemporary clinical practice remains elusive. The present study is a real-world study that focuses on specific perfusion-related clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery that could potentially be favourably affected by MiECC and thereby influence the future clinical practice.MethodsThe MiECS study is an international, multi-centre, two-arm randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing elective or urgent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), aortic valve replacement (AVR) or combined procedure (CABG + AVR) using extracorporeal circulation will be randomized to MiECC or contemporary conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (cCPB). Use of optimized conventional circuits as controls is acceptable. The study design includes a range of features to prevent bias and is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05487612).ResultsThe primary outcome is a composite of postoperative serious adverse events that could be related to perfusion technique occurring up to 30 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include use of blood products, ICU and hospital length of stay (30 days) as well as health-related quality of life (30 and 90 days).ConclusionsThe MiECS trial has been designed to overcome perceived limitation of previous trials of MiECC. Results of the proposed study could affect current perfusion practice towards advancement of patient care.
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 | 0.082 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".