MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414591108 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2025.09.035

Association Between Electrocardiographic Changes and Myocardial Injury or Death After Cardiac Surgery

2025· article· en· W4414591108 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, Richard Whitlock, André Lamy, Muhammad Mustafa Alhussein, В. В. Ломиворотов, Katheryn Brady, Matthew T.V. Chan, René Allard, Silvia Ajello, Chew Yin Wang, Domenico Paparella, Stephen E. Fremes, Gerard Urrútia, Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar, Graham S Hillis, Dmitry Shukevich, Nicholas L. Mills, Vito Margari, Joseph Mills, J. Stephen Billing, Emily Methangkool, Carisi A Polanczyk, Roberto T. Sant’Anna, William F. McIntyre, Jai Mathur, Yasser Binbraik, Narendra Jathappa, Adrián Baranchuk, Alexander Romanov, Roman Zhizhov, Denis Losik, Daniele De Viti, Xue Lin Chan, Tyng Yan Ng, Francesco Ivan Amendolagine, Mario Gaudino, Jessica Spence, Harvey D. White, Allan S. Jaffe, Joseph S. Alpert, Rajibul Mian, Stéphanie Bouvier, Jessica Vincent, Salim Yusuf, P.J. Devereaux

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsImpactSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIUniversiti MalayaBritish Heart FoundationHamilton Health SciencesOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareNational Heart Foundation of AustraliaResearch Grants Council, University Grants CommitteeAbbott LaboratoriesGeneral Research Fund of Shanghai Normal UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario SPOR SUPPORT UnitMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
KeywordsCardiac surgeryDepression (economics)ElectrocardiographyST depressionSudden cardiac deathRisk factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The relationship between myocardial injury after cardiac surgery (MICS), ischemia on electrocardiogram (ECG), and mortality is uncertain. In this study we aimed to determine whether potential ischemic ECG changes after cardiac surgery are associated with 30-day mortality. METHODS: In a cohort of adults who underwent cardiac surgery, experts interpreted ECGs preoperatively; on postoperative days 0, 1, 2, and 3; and on the last day before discharge (59,539 total ECGs reviewed) for new potential ischemic ECG changes. RESULTS: Among 12,594 patients, 9097 (72.2%) had potential ischemic ECG changes; 259 (2.1%) died within 30 days after surgery. Among patients with troponin elevation meeting MICS criteria, in models adjusting for EuroSCORE II, the hazard ratio (HR) for 30-day mortality was 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.94, P = 0.03) for new Q waves, 2.17 (95% CI 1.14-4.13, P = 0.02) for ST depression ≥ 2 mm, and 0.58 (95% CI 0.39-0.87, P = 0.007) for T-wave inversion 1-1.9 mm. ST elevation was not significantly associated with 30-day mortality. The only ECG change for which coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was an effect modifier was new left bundle branch block (LBBB), with an HR of 2.78 (95% CI 1.69-4.60, P = 0.0001) with CABG and an HR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.54-2.21, P = 0.27) without CABG (P value for interaction = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: After cardiac surgery, potential ischemic ECG changes are common and have divergent associations with mortality. ST depression was associated with a higher risk of death, whereas new Q waves and T-wave inversions were associated with a lower risk of death. A new LBBB was associated with a higher risk of death only among patients who underwent CABG. Potential ischemic ECG changes are common after cardiac surgery and lack specificity for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiology→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→