Transmyocardial laser revascularization. Personal experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indirect revascularization is a therapeutic approach in case of severe angina not suitable for percutaneous or surgical revascularization. Transmyocardial revascularization (TMR) is one of the techniques used for indirect revascularization and it allows to create transmyocardial channels by a laser energy bundle delivered on left ventricular epicardial surface. Benefits of the procedure are related mainly to the angiogenesis caused by inflammation and secondly to the destruction of the nervous fibers of the heart. PATIENTS AND METHOD: From September 1996 up to July 1997, 14 patients (9 males - 66.7%, mean age 64.8±7.9 years) underwent TMR. All patients referred angina at rest; Canadian Angina Class was IV in 7 patients (58.3%), III in 5 (41.7%). Before the enrollment, coronarography was routinely performed to find out the feasibility of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): 13 patients (91,6%) had coronary arteries lesions not suitable for direct revascularization; this condition was limited only to postero-lateral area in one patient submitted to combined TMR + CABG procedures. RESULTS: Mean discharge time was 3,2±1,3 days after surgery. All patients were discharged in good clinical conditions. Perfusion thallium scintigraphy was performed in 7 patients at a mean follow-up of 4±2 months, showing in all but one an improvement of perfusion defects. Moreover an exercise treadmill improvement was observed in the same patients and all of them are in good clinical conditions, with significantly reduced use of active drugs. CONCLUSION; Our experience confirms that TMR is a safe and feasible procedure and it offers a therapeutic solution in case of untreatable angina. Moreover, it could be a hybrid approach for patients undergoing CABGs in case of absence of vessels suitable for surgical approach in limited areas of the heart.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.028 |
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".