| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;122:430-439
© 2001 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery
Statistics for the Rest of Us (STATS) |
From the Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
Received for publication May 8, 2001. Accepted for publication May 23, 2001. Address for reprints: Eugene H. Blackstone, MD, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Desk F25, Cleveland, OH 44195 (E-mail: blackse{at}ccf.org).
Three barriers to effective, helpful, and accurate analysis of clinical outcomes for which breakthrough technology has just emerged include: (1) general analysis of repeated follow-up measures, (2) treatment comparisons from nonrandomized clinical experiences, and (3) scientific risk factor identification. The three barriers have in common workarounds, that is, unsatisfactory and inadequate temporary, but simple, solutions in the absence of a real solution. Our expectations may be so low that we run the risk of preferring the workarounds for their simplicity rather than rejoicing that breakthrough has occurred! Therefore, the purpose of this article is to acquaint you with the breakthrough methods in a nontechnical fashion so that you may read reports more knowledgeably, interact with your statistical collaborators more closely, or encourage your statistician to consider these methods if they are applicable to your clinical research.
Barriers
Follow-up assessment
Clinical question:
How does aortic valve regurgitation progress after heart valve replacement with a bioprosthesis, and what factors influence that change?
Available data:
Aortic regurgitation grade (0 to 4+) by echocardiography at periodic clinic visits.
Simple workaround:
Tabulation of aortic regurgitation grade at latest clinic visit. Simple. But it does not answer the question!
Attempts have been made to depict the time-related change in graded outcomes after cardiac surgery, but the display appears complex at first glance. Even those attempts used the status only at last follow-up, not the status assessed periodically across time.
1,2
Clinical question:
How do pressure gradients across bioprostheses progress with time?
Available data:
Echocardiographic estimates of pressure gradient at irregular clinic visits.
Simple workaround:
Lacking methods to analyze serial echocardiographic data, we simply provide a global mean value. We may go a bit further and group the measurements into a few time intervals, then average all values within those intervals, perhaps stratified by prosthesis size.
Simple, but just as in the case of repeated assessment of functional status, the workaround does not accurately answer the question.
We know that the assessments are made at uneven time intervals, that multiple measurements made in a single patient are more highly correlated with one another than those between patients, and that death, or valve explantation, or transplantation, or any of a number of other events may interrupt obtaining further measurements in some patients (called censoring). How can we analyze such complex information in a meaningful, helpful, and accurate way?
Fortunately, for such data, a breakthrough technology now exists for analyzing censored, repeatedly assessed, time-related binary (yes/no), ordinal (graded), and continuous outcomes or measurement data. You need to understand this technology better.
Nonrandomized treatment comparison
Clinical question:
Is off-pump bypass superior to on-pump bypass?
Available data:
Clinical experience with nonsystematic selection of bypass technique.
Simple workaround:
Simple comparisons of outcome for each method. We may even attempt to obtain risk-adjusted estimates of the possible benefit of one technique versus another by multivariable analysis.
This is simple (or at least somewhat simple), but it does not directly answer the question as to what other difference in outcome is attributable directly to difference in technique.
We have grown up with National Institutes of Health– sponsored, and now largely industry-sponsored, small and large randomized clinical trials. They are the gold standard for determining treatment efficacy. A major barrier in using randomized trials as the sole basis for evidence-based clinical decision-making is that we cannot randomize everything.
In the absence of randomized trials, simple comparisons are greeted with skepticism from unconvinced colleagues. We are comparing apples and oranges! Treatment has been selective, so the treatment groups often differ importantly in baseline characteristics, and these may account for differences we attribute to treatment.
Fortunately, for nonrandomized comparisons, a breakthrough technology now exists that under certain circumstances can adjust for selection factors and allow causal inferences to be made from clinical experience. You need to understand this new technology better.
Risk factor identification
Clinical question:
What are the risk factors for death after valve repair or replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease?
Available data:
Long-term systematic follow-up of patients and numerous patient and procedure details.
Usual method (I hesitate to say simple, because it is not!):
Multivariable analysis. However, the best analyses are carefully crafted, intensely medically informed, and use "human" directed variable selection strategies. 3 The process is more art than science.
Multivariable identification of risk factors may seem only a technical statistical detail to surgeons. However, it is the substance of many clinical investigations. Yet, two different analysts looking at the same data set often identify different risk factors. 4-6 In addition to inconsistent findings, automated computer algorithms often are used to assist (or even perform) multivariable analyses in a stepwise fashion. This practice is generally condemned by statisticians.
Fortunately for scientific variable selection, a breakthrough technology now exists that not only identifies risk factors from a carefully constructed, medically informed set of variables, but also quantifies the reliability of that identification. You need to understand this technology better.
Breakthrough technologies
Analyzing censored repeatedly assessed time-related data
In 1972, D. R. Cox introduced breakthrough technology for multivariable analysis of time-related events. 7 During the 1980s, textbooks on survival analysis proliferated. In analysis of time-related events, the event is assumed to be a "point process"; that is, it is assumed to occur at some specific point in time, and the analysis focuses on the distribution of times until that event occurs.
A number of phenomena of equal importance to the cardiothoracic surgeon are not point processes, but rather they continually evolve across time. That evolution may be assessed on a continuous scale or on a semicontinuous ordered scale. Examples include time-related change in New York Heart Association functional class after a Dor procedure, degree of return of valvular regurgitation after mitral valve repair and its progression, change in ventricular volume after a myocardial infarction, evidence for sensitization after left ventricular assist device insertion, change in pulmonary function after single- or double-lung transplantation, or progression of swallowing difficulty in achalasia.
For all these phenomena, information generally is obtained from patients periodically, usually at irregular intervals that differ from patient to patient. Assessment is interrupted (censored) by death or by cross-sectional follow-up, just as in time-related events studies. Further, the medical investigator is interested in factors that affect the longitudinal evolution of these phenomena.
There were severe technologic barriers to comprehensive analysis of these types of data. Repeated-measures analysis of variance for continuous variables had restrictive requirements for clinical data, including the necessity for fixed time intervals of assessment and lack of provision for censored data. Ordinal logistic regression for assessment of functional status was useful for assessments made at cross-sectional follow-up, but not for repeated assessment at irregular time intervals with censoring.
Breakthrough occurred at Johns Hopkins University in the late 1980s. Dr Scott Zeger, his students, and colleagues incrementally, but rapidly, evolved the scope, generality, and availability of what they termed "longitudinal data analysis." 8 The methodology accounts for correlation among repeated measurements in individual patients, variables that relate to both the average effect and the nature of the variability, measurement at irregular intervals, and censoring. (The latter assumes that censoring is independent of the outcome being analyzed, just as in survival analysis.) Because both average response and variability are analyzed simultaneously, the technology has been called "mixed modeling." The technique has been extended to dichotomous and ordinal variables.
Thus, except under exceptional circumstances when the techniques are similar, this new technology has virtually replaced former restrictive varieties of repeated-measures analysis.
For illustration,Figure 1A is a scattergram of mean pressure gradient estimates from echocardiography across aortic pericardial valves. Questions asked: (1) What is the behavior pressure gradient across time? (2) What is the influence of prosthesis size? (3) What other factors relate to the gradient? These were opportunistically acquired data points and may contain biases of assessment. Further, most patients were dead by 18 years, and some had their prosthesis explanted (censoring mechanisms). Importantly,Figure 1B illustrates that pressure gradients were measured multiple times in some patients. How do we make sense of such data?
|
Figure 1C
shows the average response illustrating the general evolution of mean gradient from the data and the expected differences according to valve size.*
Let us shift from a continuous outcome to an ordered categorical outcome in these same valve prosthesis patients: aortic valve regurgitation(Figure 2). The assumption is that patients progress across time from lower grades of regurgitation to higher grades. Think of progression as a series of cascading leaking containers. Imagine the first container (grade 0) gradually emptying into the grade 1+ container, which in turn leaks into grade 2+, which leaks into grades 3+ and 4+. Then imagine, if this were water leaking, graphing the level of water in each container as time progresses. This is the conceptual idea behind an ordinal outcome assessment.
|
. Some had a single echocardiogram, but many had two or more. We used longitudinal data analyses for ordinal outcomes to construct the average evolution of aortic regurgitation shown inFigure 3. To provide a sense of visual validation, we superimposed the proportion of observations in each regurgitation grade for broad time intervals. (For this visual validation, we have ignored the fact that multiple observations may have been made in the same patient, but the analysis shown by the solid lines takes that into account.)
|
In addition to the average evolution across time, we can use longitudinal data analysis methodology to identify risk factors that either accelerate or retard the regurgitation process.
Much cardiothoracic surgery follow-up data resemble these two examples. We need not settle for a simple average or a listing of values at last follow-up (which usually pertains to median follow-up time), discarding repeated assessment. The visual display may be more complex. But is this not what we were wanting to know all along?
Accounting for selection factors in nonrandomized comparisons
Few medical decisions are based solely on randomized clinical trials. Rather, they are based on clinical observations, experience, and judgment. It is unlikely that every decision in the future can be based on randomized clinical trials. The reasons are in part irrational, in part practical and economic, in part moral, and in part inherent in the weaknesses of randomized clinical trials, particularly when end points are in the distant future, during which time crossover and changing conditions obscure the comparison. Some desired comparisons of naturally occurring phenomena, such as investigating the consequences of chronic atrial fibrillation, then cannot be subjected to randomized trial.
We must acknowledge that simple comparisons of nonrandomized treatment have led us astray. This is because the treatment is confounded by selection factors. Randomized clinical trials eliminate this form of bias. However, randomized clinical trials are often designed so narrowly as to preclude widespread generalization to routine clinical care. If, instead, we are going to attempt to use clinical practice information for making comparisons, the analytical method must account for patient selection factors.
One method devised to account for patient selection is matched comparison. The idea is to match patients in one group with those in another on the basis of as many patient characteristics as possible. Unfortunately, once one tries to match more than two or three characteristics, it becomes exceedingly difficult to identify matching pairs. This has made many of us skeptical of matched comparisons. An alternative has been multivariable analysis of outcomes in which other variables modulating the outcome are accounted for, leaving any residual difference attributable to the treatment. Some of us have thought this method was superior to matching. Multivariable adjustment may work excellently; however, there has been no way to verify that it has worked and plenty of examples cited where it has not.
Breakthrough occurred in the early 1980s with an important article by Rosenbaum and Rubin. 9 They introduced the idea of balancing scores, the simplest and coarsest of which is the propensity score. 10 The technique, aimed at drawing causal inference from unrandomized comparison data, went largely unnoticed in an era of governmental support for large multi-institutional randomized clinical trials. This has changed. Beginning in the mid-1990s, statisticians began using balancing scores, and propensity scores in particular, in medicine and many other disciplines that require comparisons.
Construction of a propensity score is not a foreign subject to cardiothoracic surgeons. We have often asked what factors are associated with receiving one form of treatment rather than another: transvalvular patch or not in tetralogy of Fallot, one-stage versus two-stage management of cyanotic babies, palliation versus aggressive therapy for brain metastases, and so forth. In these analyses, the treatment received is simply an event. Therefore, the usual probability-of-event analyses to which we have become accustomed over the past 30 years, such as logistic regression, are used to identify factors associated with what I will call "group membership" (the treatment received).
On the surface, it may seem ludicrous to identify factors associated with group membership when, of course, we know what treatment the patient has received! However, this is no stranger than our trying to find common denominators of an event such as hospital mortality. There, too, we know that the patient has died, but we are trying to look at a large group of patients to discover the general risk factors. In the case of examining group membership, we are attempting to identify selection factors associated with a higher or lower propensity toward receiving one treatment or the other.
Once one has identified the main factors, which are in and of themselves of interest, one generally has a large enough number of patients in the study to amplify the logistic regression equation with essentially everything else known about the patients. It does not matter that many P values will be nonsignificant. All we are trying to do is to account for as much selection information as possible.
Things are familiar to this point. Now a new idea is introduced. The logistic regression analysis generates an equation. This equation is solved mathematically for each patient by entering values for the factors in the propensity equation. This yields a single propensity score for each patient. What is then claimed is that if patients are now grouped according to the magnitude of their propensity score, groups with similar scores will appear to be reasonably well matched with respect to all their characteristics. 9
This truly extraordinary claim is based on observing what is happening in using the propensity score. Basically, patient characteristics are balanced at the expense of unbalancing n.Table 1 illustrates this phenomenon for three different studies: long-term aspirin use in patients evaluated for known or suspected coronary artery disease, chronic atrial fibrillation in degenerative mitral valve disease, and off-pump versus on-pump coronary bypass grafting. In each case, patients are sorted according to propensity score and then divided into five equal numbered groups (quintiles). Notice that in the first quintile, few patients have the factor present, but in the fifth quintile, most have the factor present. Within each quintile, patients are reasonably well matched, but patient characteristics differ considerably between quintiles.
|
10 shall detail each of these in an upcoming editorial. In brief, in propensity-matched pairs, patients are selected in pairs on the basis of just one variable, the propensity score. In subset analysis, the patients are sorted according to propensity score, divided into a number of equal sized groups, and then their characteristics and outcome are compared within these subsets (illustrated inTable 1). In multivariable adjustment, the propensity score and the indicator for treatment group are incorporated into a general multivariable analysis of outcome. Here I will illustrate just the first method, using the propensity score in a matched-pair analysis.
Table 2 illustrates the problem of outcomes comparison using clinical data: the two treatment groups are very different. The table compares patients according to whether coronary bypass grafting was performed on pump or off pump.
Patients undergoing off-pump bypass were older, had higher creatinine values, had more carotid artery disease, and were more likely to be hypertensive than patients whose bypass grafting was performed on pump. In contrast, patients who underwent on-pump bypass grafting had more advanced symptoms, were more likely to have diabetes, and had more right coronary artery disease and left circumflex disease.
|
11,12 Only 406 of the 481 off-pump cases could be matched well with cases undergoing on-pump surgery. For the most part, the two groups of patients were well matched on most variables(Table 3). Of some 73 comparisons, only two differed at P < .05. Therefore, we believe comparison of treatment outcomes has more validity in these well-matched patients than it had in the unmatched comparison.
|
A second limitation that differentiates this methodology from randomized clinical trials is that it cannot take into account unmeasured factors that cannot be ignored. For this article, I tested this limitation.Tables 2 and3 contain two variables that were deliberately not taken into account in propensity matching. The two groups are quite unmatched with regard to both of these variables(Table 1). Propensity matching on other factors did not balance the groups on these two factors(Table 1). This finding has made me cautious of propensity matching based on only a handful of variables.
When propensity matching is used, it is not uncommon to find some unmatched patients: oranges among the apples. They represent ends of the spectrum of a disease that are treated in a systematic fashion. It is a good idea to characterize them and determine why treatment was systematic.
Transforming multivariable analysis from art to science
A seminal contribution of the Framingham Study Investigators was the idea that in the absence of identified mechanisms of disease or treatment failure, useful inferences for medical decision-making, for lifestyle modification, and for programmatic decisions about avenues of further research could be gleaned by nonspecific risk factor identification. 13 A direct consequence of the idea, however, is that for any set of potential variables that may be associated with outcome, there is no unique set of risk factors that constitute the best common denominators of disease or treatment failure. Therefore, different persons analyzing the same data may generate different sets of risk factors.
As a consequence, multivariable analysis for risk factors has become an art that depends on expert medical knowledge of the entity being studied, understanding the goals of the research, knowledge of the variables and how they may relate to the study goals as well as to one another, identifying the quality and reliability of each variable, and devising different, often sequential, analysis strategies appropriate to each research question. Not all these issues of art or expertise can disappear, but there are substantial aspects of multivariable analysis that are yielding to science.
Dr David Naftel, 4 in an important 1994 letter, addressed nine aspects of multivariable analysis that contribute to obtaining different models (sets of risk factors). These include using different statistical models, different approaches to missing data, different management of variables with minimal information, different treatment of correlated data, different coding of data, different handling of apparently incorrect data, different variable selection methods and criteria using P values, different computer resources, and different appreciations of science. In all these areas but one, incremental information has been generated over the past several years that is beginning to differentiate poor techniques from reasonable techniques and from optimal techniques. That one area remaining has been different variable selection methodology, and it is an important one.
Part of the challenge is that variables may be thought to be risk factors because they are associated with a small P value, and other factors may be thought not to be risk factors because of larger P values, but both opinions may be erroneous (type I and type II statistical errors, respectively). There is need for a method that balances these two types of error. Closely coupled with this is the need for a measure of reliability of identification of the risk factors. Because one is analyzing only a single set of data, and not many sets of data about the same subject, reliability with which risk factors are identified has been elusive.
Recently, breakthrough has occurred in risk factor selection that promises to balance decision errors and quantify the reliability of the variable selection process.16 The method belongs to a class of new methods that has developed over the past 20 years. In 1983, an astonishing article appeared in the lay press by Persi Diaconis and Bradley Efron from Stanford University entitled, "Computer-Intensive Methods in Statistics." 15 They indicated that "most statistical methods in common use today were developed between 1800 and 1930, when computation was slow and expensive. Now computation is fast and cheap . . . . The new methods are fantastic computational spendthrifts . . . . The payoff for such intensive computation is freedom from two limiting factors that have dominated statistical theory since its beginnings: the assumption that the data conform to a bell-shaped curve and the need to focus on statistical measures whose theoretical properties can be analyzed mathematically."
Dr Efron and his group demonstrated that random sampling with replacement from a data set to create a new data set, repeated to generate perhaps thousands of new data sets, can generate robust and accurate statistics without assumptions by combining the information generated from these many data sets. His group called the technique bootstrapping. They named it bootstrapping after the expression "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps," because it reflected the fact that one could develop all the statistical testing necessary directly from the actual data in hand by repeated sampling.
These techniques have been applied to entire analytical processes, including multivariable analysis, 14 and have been called "bootstrap bagging." In fact, one still has to pay attention to appropriate models, missing data, variable considerations, very particularly to correlated variables, appropriate strategy, and so forth, that remain part of a disciplined, informed approach to the data. However, the variable selection process is bootstrapped.
In practice, a carefully crafted set of variables is formulated that will be subjected to simple automated variable selection, such as forward stepwise selection, whereby the most significant variables are entered one by one into a multivariable model. A specific P value criterion for entering and retaining these variables is specified. Then, a random sample of cases is selected, sometimes of the same sample size as the original n, but often of somewhat smaller size as protection against identifying rare patient subgroups as risk factors. A completely automated analysis is performed, and the results of it are stored. Then, another random set of cases is drawn from the original data set, and analysis is performed. This resampling of the original data set followed by analysis continues perhaps hundreds and even thousands of times. Finally, the frequency of occurrence of risk factors among these many models is summarized. The frequency of occurrence generally stabilizes after about 100 bootstrap analyses.
Of interest, the variables identified for every bootstrap data set are usually different, a sobering revelation. However, it soon becomes evident that some variables never are selected and others seldom are selected. The variables that appear in 50% or more of models are claimed to be the reliable ones.
This phenomenon is illustrated inTable 4. Fifteen variables were selected from among many being analyzed for the late hazard phase of death after mitral valve repair or replacement for degenerative disease. In analysis of the first bootstrap sample, 8 of these 15 variables were selected (only 5 of which were found eventually to be reliable risk factors). By 100 analyses, although every variable had been identified as a risk factor in at least two analyses, 5 variables dominated the analyses, which we considered the reliable risk factors, 8 rarely appeared, and 2 appeared in 22% to 32% of analyses.
|
Bootstrap bagging, although demanding huge amounts of computer cycles, removes much of the human arbitrariness from multivariable analysis and provides another important statistic: a measure of reliability of a risk factor. Thus, increasingly we have been reporting not only the magnitude of the effect, its variance, and its P value, but also its bootstrap reliability. The technique appears to provide a balance between selecting risk factors that are not reliable (type I error) and overlooking variables that are reliable (type II error).
Barriers remaining
What will we do with these breakthrough technologies that have broken down important barriers to meaningful cardiothoracic clinical research? What I fear is that cardiothoracic surgeons will presume these technologies will not be helpful, but rather a new set of barriers to their understanding of clinical data analysis reports.
These methods are no doubt complex. They require the expertise of a collaborating statistical colleague. Unfortunately, we insist on doing our own statistics, content to live with the simple answers rather than those that are most revealing or most accurate. We must learn that we can understand methods without having to push all the buttons!
A caveat is that you may find that your statisticians have not kept up with these breakthrough developments in their own field! They reinforce fallback to obsolete methods.
What is not ignorable is that the methods require high-speed computing and dissemination of high-quality software. Until popular operating systems incorporate true multithreading, background bootstrapping at least on personal computers will remain a nightmare.
All these barriers can be overcome but one: your lack of understanding of the methodology. The purpose of this article has been to help you understand these breakthrough statistical methods better.
Footnotes
Read at the Eighty-first Annual Meeting of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, San Diego, Calif, May 6-9, 2001. 
*Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, Thomas JD, Blackstone EH, Rajeswaran J, Okies JE, et al. Hemodynamic stability over 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Unpublished data.
Sabik JF, Gillinov AM, Blackstone EH, Vacha C, Houghtalling P, Navia J, et al. Off pump techniques do not reduce major morbidity and mortality of coronary artery bypass surgery. Unpublished data.
References
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Brunelli, S. D. Cassivi, J. Fibla, L. A. Halgren, D. A. Wigle, M. S. Allen, F. C. Nichols, K. R. Shen, and C. Deschamps External Validation of the Recalibrated Thoracic Revised Cardiac Risk Index for Predicting the Risk of Major Cardiac Complications After Lung Resection Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2011; 92(2): 445 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, M. Refai, M. Salati, C. Pompili, and A. Sabbatini Standardized Combined Outcome Index as an Instrument for Monitoring Performance After Pulmonary Resection Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2011; 92(1): 272 - 277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. V. Ariyaratne, B. Billah, C.-H. Yap, D. Dinh, J. A. Smith, G. C. Shardey, and C. M. Reid An Australian risk prediction model for determining early mortality following aortic valve replacement Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, June 1, 2011; 39(6): 815 - 821. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Pompili, A. Brunelli, F. Xiume, M. Refai, M. Salati, and A. Sabbatini Predictors of postoperative decline in quality of life after major lung resections Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, May 1, 2011; 39(5): 732 - 737. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. W. Rice, J. R. Goldblum, L. A. Rybicki, J. Rajeswaran, S. C. Murthy, D. P. Mason, and E. H. Blackstone Fate of the esophagogastric anastomosis J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2011; 141(4): 875 - 880.e1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, S. D. Cassivi, M. Salati, J. Fibla, C. Pompili, L. A. Halgren, D. A. Wigle, and L. Di Nunzio Digital measurements of air leak flow and intrapleural pressures in the immediate postoperative period predict risk of prolonged air leak after pulmonary lobectomy Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, April 1, 2011; 39(4): 584 - 588. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Mihaljevic, C. M. Jarrett, A. M. Gillinov, S. J. Williams, P. A. DeVilliers, W. J. Stewart, L. G. Svensson, J. F. Sabik III, and E. H. Blackstone Robotic repair of posterior mitral valve prolapse versus conventional approaches: Potential realized J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2011; 141(1): 72 - 80.e4. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. C. Murthy, S. I. Reznik, U. C. Ogwudu, C. F. Farver, A. Arrossi, L. H. Batizy, E. R. Nowicki, T. M. Mekhail, D. P. Mason, T. W. Rice, et al. Winning the Battle, Losing the War: The Noncurative "Curative" Resection for Stage I Adenocarcinoma of the Lung Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2010; 90(4): 1067 - 1074. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, G. Varela, M. Salati, M. F. Jimenez, C. Pompili, N. Novoa, and A. Sabbatini Recalibration of the Revised Cardiac Risk Index in Lung Resection Candidates Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2010; 90(1): 199 - 203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, G. Varela, M. Refai, M. F. Jimenez, C. Pompili, A. Sabbatini, and J. L. Aranda A Scoring System to Predict the Risk of Prolonged Air Leak After Lobectomy Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2010; 90(1): 204 - 209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Medalion, H. Cohen, A. Assali, H. Vaknin Assa, A. Farkash, E. Snir, E. Sharoni, P. Biderman, G. Milo, A. Battler, et al. The effect of cardiac angiography timing, contrast media dose, and preoperative renal function on acute renal failure after coronary artery bypass grafting J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2010; 139(6): 1539 - 1544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Johnston, A. M. Gillinov, E. H. Blackstone, B. Griffin, W. Stewart, J. F. Sabik III, T. Mihaljevic, L. G. Svensson, P. L. Houghtaling, and B. W. Lytle Surgical Repair of Posterior Mitral Valve Prolapse: Implications for Guidelines and Percutaneous Repair Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2010; 89(5): 1385 - 1394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Y. Yoon, N. G. Smedira, E. R. Nowicki, K. J. Hoercher, J. Rajeswaran, E. H. Blackstone, and B. W. Lytle Decision support in surgical management of ischemic cardiomyopathy J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 2010; 139(2): 283 - 293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Cerfolio and A. S. Bryant Different Diffusing Capacity of the Lung for Carbon Monoxide as Predictors of Respiratory Morbidity Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2009; 88(2): 405 - 411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. H. Beekman III, B. W. Duncan, D. J. Hagler, T. K. Jones, J. D. Kugler, J. W. Moore, K. J. Jenkins, and for the Workgroup on Pediatric Cardiac Devices, Se Pathways to Approval of Pediatric Cardiac Devices in the United States: Challenges and Solutions Pediatrics, July 1, 2009; 124(1): e155 - e162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Brunelli, R. Belardinelli, M. Refai, M. Salati, L. Socci, C. Pompili, and A. Sabbatini Peak Oxygen Consumption During Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test Improves Risk Stratification in Candidates to Major Lung Resection Chest, May 1, 2009; 135(5): 1260 - 1267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. E. Antunes, J. F. de Oliveira, and M. J. Antunes Risk-prediction for postoperative major morbidity in coronary surgery Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, May 1, 2009; 35(5): 760 - 768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, R. G. Berrisford, G. Rocco, G. Varela, and on behalf of the European Society of Thoracic Surg The European Thoracic Database project: composite performance score to measure quality of care after major lung resection Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, May 1, 2009; 35(5): 769 - 774. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. W. ElBardissi, J. A. Dearani, R. C. Daly, C. J. Mullany, T. A. Orszulak, F. J. Puga, and H. V. Schaff Embolic Potential of Cardiac Tumors and Outcome After Resection: A Case-Control Study Stroke, January 1, 2009; 40(1): 156 - 162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gillinov, E. H. Blackstone, A. Alaulaqi, J. F. Sabik III, T. Mihaljevic, L. G. Svensson, P. L. Houghtaling, A. Salemi, D. R. Johnston, and B. W. Lytle Outcomes After Repair of the Anterior Mitral Leaflet for Degenerative Disease Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2008; 86(3): 708 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. P. Savonen, V. Kiviniemi, J. A. Laukkanen, T. A. Lakka, T. H. Rauramaa, J. T. Salonen, and R. Rauramaa Chronotropic incompetence and mortality in middle-aged men with known or suspected coronary heart disease Eur. Heart J., August 1, 2008; 29(15): 1896 - 1902. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, M. K. Ferguson, G. Rocco, P. Pieretti, W. T. Vigneswaran, N. J. Morgan-Hughes, M. Zanello, and M. Salati A Scoring System Predicting the Risk for Intensive Care Unit Admission for Complications After Major Lung Resection: A Multicenter Analysis Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2008; 86(1): 213 - 218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, M. Refai, F. Xiume, M. Salati, V. Sciarra, L. Socci, and A. Sabbatini Performance at Symptom-Limited Stair-Climbing Test is Associated With Increased Cardiopulmonary Complications, Mortality, and Costs After Major Lung Resection Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2008; 86(1): 240 - 248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Lim, A. Ali, P. Theodorou, I. Sousa, H. Ashrafian, T. Chamageorgakis, A. Duncan, M. Henein, P. Diggle, and J. Pepper Longitudinal Study of the Profile and Predictors of Left Ventricular Mass Regression After Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2008; 85(6): 2026 - 2029. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Mihaljevic, E. R. Nowicki, J. Rajeswaran, E. H. Blackstone, L. Lagazzi, J. Thomas, B. W. Lytle, and D. M. Cosgrove Survival after valve replacement for aortic stenosis: Implications for decision making. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2008; 135(6): 1270 - 1279.e12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. K. Kaple, R. T. Murphy, L. M. DiPaola, P. L. Houghtaling, H. M. Lever, B. W. Lytle, E. H. Blackstone, and N. G. Smedira Mitral Valve Abnormalities in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Echocardiographic Features and Surgical Outcomes Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2008; 85(5): 1527 - 1535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. J. Hoercher, E. R. Nowicki, E. H. Blackstone, G. Singh, J. M. Alster, G. V. Gonzalez-Stawinski, R. C. Starling, J. B. Young, and N. G. Smedira Prognosis of patients removed from a transplant waiting list for medical improvement: Implications for organ allocation and transplantation for status 2 patients. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2008; 135(5): 1159 - 1166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gillinov, E. H. Blackstone, E. R. Nowicki, W. Slisatkorn, G. Al-Dossari, D. R. Johnston, K. M. George, P. L. Houghtaling, B. Griffin, J. F. Sabik III, et al. Valve repair versus valve replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2008; 135(4): 885 - 893.e2. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. E. Roselli, G. B. Pettersson, E. H. Blackstone, M. E. Brizzio, P. L. Houghtaling, R. Hauck, J. M. Burke, and B. W. Lytle Adverse events during reoperative cardiac surgery: Frequency, characterization, and rescue J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 2008; 135(2): 316 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, G. Varela, P. Van Schil, M. Salati, N. Novoa, J. M. Hendriks, M. F. Jimenez, P. Lauwers, and on behalf of the ESTS Audit and Clinical Excellenc Multicentric analysis of performance after major lung resections by using the European Society Objective Score (ESOS) Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, February 1, 2008; 33(2): 284 - 288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. A. Ferraris, F. H. Edwards, D. M. Shahian, and S. P. Ferraris Risk Stratification and Comorbidity Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 199 - 246. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, M. Refai, F. Xiume, M. Salati, R. Marasco, V. Sciarra, L. Socci, and A. Sabbatini Oxygen desaturation during maximal stair-climbing test and postoperative complications after major lung resections Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, January 1, 2008; 33(1): 77 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, G. Varela, G. Rocco, L. Socci, N. Novoa, T. Gatani, M. Salati, and A. L. Rocca A model to predict the immediate postoperative FEV1 following major lung resections Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, November 1, 2007; 32(5): 783 - 786. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. P. Mason, M. E. Brizzio, J. M. Alster, A. M. McNeill, S. C. Murthy, M. M. Budev, A. C. Mehta, O. A. Minai, G. B. Pettersson, and E. H. Blackstone Lung Transplantation for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2007; 84(4): 1121 - 1128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. F. Sabik III, E. H. Blackstone, M. Firstenberg, and B. W. Lytle A Benchmark for Evaluating Innovative Treatment of Left Main Coronary Disease Circulation, September 11, 2007; 116(11_suppl): I-232 - I-239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, M. Salati, M. Refai, F. Xiume, G. Rocco, and A. Sabbatini Risk-adjusted econometric model to estimate postoperative costs: An additional instrument for monitoring performance after major lung resection J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2007; 134(3): 624 - 629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M.-C. Londono, A. Cardenas, M. Guevara, L. Quinto, D. d. l. Heras, M. Navasa, A. Rimola, J.-C. Garcia-Valdecasas, V. Arroyo, and P. Gines MELD score and serum sodium in the prediction of survival of patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation Gut, September 1, 2007; 56(9): 1283 - 1290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Varela, A. Brunelli, G. Rocco, M. F. Jimenez, M. Salati, and T. Gatani Evidence of Lower Alteration of Expiratory Volume in Patients With Airflow Limitation in the Immediate Period After Lobectomy Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2007; 84(2): 417 - 422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Jokinen, M. J. Hippelainen, O. A. Pitkanen, and J. E.K. Hartikainen Mitral Valve Replacement Versus Repair: Propensity-Adjusted Survival and Quality-of-Life Analysis Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2007; 84(2): 451 - 458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. C. Murthy, A. C. Arroliga, P. A. Walts, J. Feng, J.-P. Yared, B. W. Lytle, and E. H. Blackstone Ventilatory dependency after cardiovascular surgery J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2007; 134(2): 484 - 490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Blood Conservatio, V. A. Ferraris, S. P. Ferraris, S. P. Saha, E. A. Hessel II, C. K. Haan, B. D. Royston, C. R. Bridges, R. S.D. Higgins, G. Despotis, et al. Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Clinical Practice Guideline Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2007; 83(5_Supplement): S27 - S86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. S.Y. Chang, N. G. Smedira, C. L. Chang, M. M. Benavides, U. Myhre, J. Feng, E. H. Blackstone, and B. W. Lytle Cardiac surgery after mediastinal radiation: Extent of exposure influences outcome J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 2007; 133(2): 404 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, N. J. Morgan-Hughes, M. Refai, M. Salati, A. Sabbatini, and G. Rocco Risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality models to compare the performance of two units after major lung resections J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2007; 133(1): 88 - 96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. K. Ghanta, R. Chen, N. Narayanasamy, S. McGurk, S. Lipsitz, F. Y. Chen, and L. H. Cohn Suture bicuspidization of the tricuspid valve versus ring annuloplasty for repair of functional tricuspid regurgitation: Midterm results of 237 consecutive patients J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2007; 133(1): 117 - 126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, F. Xiume, M. Refai, M. Salati, R. Marasco, V. Sciarra, and A. Sabbatini Evaluation of Expiratory Volume, Diffusion Capacity, and Exercise Tolerance Following Major Lung Resection: A Prospective Follow-up Analysis Chest, January 1, 2007; 131(1): 141 - 147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. W. Rice, D. Khuntia, L. A. Rybicki, D. J. Adelstein, M. A. Vogelbaum, D. P. Mason, S. C. Murthy, and E. H. Blackstone Brain Metastases From Esophageal Cancer: A Phenomenon of Adjuvant Therapy? Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2006; 82(6): 2042 - 2049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Karamlou, E. H. Blackstone, J. A. Hawkins, M. L. Jacobs, K. R. Kanter, J. W. Brown, C. Mavroudis, C. A. Caldarone, W. G. Williams, B. W. McCrindle, et al. Can pulmonary conduit dysfunction and failure be reduced in infants and children less than age 2 years at initial implantation? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2006; 132(4): 829 - 838. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. P. Mason, D. J. Boffa, S. C. Murthy, T. R. Gildea, M. M. Budev, A. C. Mehta, A. M. McNeill, N. G. Smedira, J. Feng, T. W. Rice, et al. Extended use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after lung transplantation J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2006; 132(4): 954 - 960. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Varela, A. Brunelli, G. Rocco, R. Marasco, M. F. Jimenez, V. Sciarra, J. L. Aranda, and T. Gatani Predicted versus observed FEV1 in the immediate postoperative period after pulmonary lobectomy Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, October 1, 2006; 30(4): 644 - 648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gillinov, S. Bhavani, E. H. Blackstone, J. Rajeswaran, L. G. Svensson, J. L. Navia, B.G. Pettersson, J. F. Sabik III, N. G. Smedira, T. Mihaljevic, et al. Surgery for Permanent Atrial Fibrillation: Impact of Patient Factors and Lesion Set Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2006; 82(2): 502 - 514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Sabik III, E. H. Blackstone, A. M. Gillinov, N. G. Smedira, and B. W. Lytle Occurrence and Risk Factors for Reintervention After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Circulation, July 4, 2006; 114(1_suppl): I-454 - I-460. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. DeCamp, E. H. Blackstone, K. S. Naunheim, M. J. Krasna, D. E. Wood, Y. M. Meli, R. J. McKenna Jr, and for the NETT Research Group Patient and Surgical Factors Influencing Air Leak After Lung Volume Reduction Surgery: Lessons Learned From the National Emphysema Treatment Trial Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2006; 82(1): 197 - 207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli and G. Rocco Internal validation of risk models in lung resection surgery: Bootstrap versus training-and-test sampling J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2006; 131(6): 1243 - 1247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Walts, S. C. Murthy, A. C. Arroliga, J.-P. Yared, J. Rajeswaran, T. W. Rice, B. W. Lytle, and E. H. Blackstone Tracheostomy after cardiovascular surgery: An assessment of long-term outcome J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2006; 131(4): 830 - 837. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Brunelli, F. Xiume', M. Al Refai, M. Salati, R. Marasco, and A. Sabbatini Risk-adjusted morbidity, mortality and failure-to-rescue models for internal provider profiling after major lung resection Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg, April 1, 2006; 5(2): 92 - 96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls and limitations in measuring and interpreting the outcomes of mitral valve repair. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2006; 131(3): 523 - 529.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thromboembolism after pneumonectomy for malignancy: An independent marker of poor outcome. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2006; 131(3): 711 - 718.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gillinov, F. Bakaeen, P. M. McCarthy, E. H. Blackstone, J. Rajeswaran, G. Pettersson, J. F. Sabik III, F. Najam, K. M. Hill, L. G. Svensson, et al. Surgery for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation in the Setting of Mitral Valve Disease: A Role for Pulmonary Vein Isolation? Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2006; 81(1): 19 - 28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Sabik III, E. H. Blackstone, A. M. Gillinov, M. K. Banbury, N. G. Smedira, and B. W. Lytle Influence of patient characteristics and arterial grafts on freedom from coronary reoperation J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2006; 131(1): 90 - 98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gillinov, J. Sirak, E. H. Blackstone, P. M. McCarthy, J. Rajeswaran, G. Pettersson, F. J. Sabik III, L. G. Svensson, J. L. Navia, D. M. Cosgrove, et al. The Cox maze procedure in mitral valve disease: Predictors of recurrent atrial fibrillation J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., December 1, 2005; 130(6): 1653 - 1660. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Karamlou, K. Jang, W. G. Williams, C. A. Caldarone, G. Van Arsdell, J. G. Coles, and B. W. McCrindle Outcomes and Associated Risk Factors for Aortic Valve Replacement in 160 Children: A Competing-Risks Analysis Circulation, November 29, 2005; 112(22): 3462 - 3469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Trachsel, B. W. McCrindle, S. Nakagawa, and D. Bohn Oxygenation Index Predicts Outcome in Children with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., July 15, 2005; 172(2): 206 - 211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. M. DeCamp Jr., S. Ashiku, and R. Thurer The Role of Surgery in N2 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2005; 11(13): 5033s - 5037s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gillinov, P. M. McCarthy, E. H. Blackstone, J. Rajeswaran, G. Pettersson, J. F. Sabik III, L. G. Svensson, D. M. Cosgrove, K. M. Hill, G. V. Gonzalez-Stawinski, et al. Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation with bipolar radiofrequency as the primary modality J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2005; 129(6): 1322 - 1329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Okereke, S. C. Murthy, J. M. Alster, E. H. Blackstone, and T. W. Rice Characterization and Importance of Air Leak After Lobectomy Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2005; 79(4): 1167 - 1173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brunelli, A. Sabbatini, F. Xiume', M. Al Refai, A. Borri, M. Salati, R. D. Marasco, and A. Fianchini A model to predict the decline of the forced expiratory volume in one second and the carbon monoxide lung diffusion capacity early after major lung resection Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg, February 1, 2005; 4(1): 61 - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Hirose, L. G. Svensson, B. W. Lytle, E. H. Blackstone, J. Rajeswaran, and D. M. Cosgrove Aortic Dissection After Previous Cardiovascular Surgery Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2004; 78(6): 2099 - 2105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Shahian, E. H. Blackstone, F. H. Edwards, F. L. Grover, G. L. Grunkemeier, D. C. Naftel, S. A.M. Nashef, W. C. Nugent, and E. D. Peterson Cardiac Surgery Risk Models: A Position Article Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 2004; 78(5): 1868 - 1877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. G. Svensson, E. H. Blackstone, J. Rajeswaran, J. F. Sabik III, B. W. Lytle, G. Gonzalez-Stawinski, P. Varvitsiotis, M. K. Banbury, P. M. McCarthy, G. B. Pettersson, et al. Does the Arterial Cannulation Site for Circulatory Arrest Influence Stroke Risk? Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2004; 78(4): 1274 - 1284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. R. Souza, P. M. A. Pomerantzeff, C. M. de Almeida Brandao, L. F. Cardoso, L. R. V. Carrillo, L. F. P. Moreira, M. Grinberg, and S. A. de Oliveira Late evolution of mitral commissurotomy in patients with low echocardiographic score Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, September 1, 2004; 26(3): 640 - 645. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. R. Nowicki, N. J. O. Birkmeyer, R. W. Weintraub, B. J. Leavitt, J. H. Sanders, L. J. Dacey, R. A. Clough, R. D. Quinn, D. C. Charlesworth, D. A. Sisto, et al. Multivariable prediction of in-hospital mortality associated with aortic and mitral valve surgery in Northern New England Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2004; 77(6): 1966 - 1977. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Quader, P. M. McCarthy, A. M. Gillinov, J. M. Alster, D. M. Cosgrove III, B. W. Lytle, and E. H. Blackstone Does preoperative atrial fibrillation reduce survival after coronary artery bypass grafting? Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2004; 77(5): 1514 - 1524. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Sabik, H. Nemeh, B. W. Lytle, E. H. Blackstone, A. M. Gillinov, J. Rajeswaran, and D. M. Cosgrove Cannulation of the axillary artery with a side graft reduces morbidity Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2004; 77(4): 1315 - 1320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Legare, K. J. Buth, J. A. Sullivan, and G. M. Hirsch Composite arterial grafts versus conventional grafting for coronary artery bypass grafting J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2004; 127(1): 160 - 166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Sabik III, B. W. Lytle, E. H. Blackstone, M. Khan, P. L. Houghtaling, and D. M. Cosgrove Does competitive flow reduce internal thoracic artery graft patency? Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 2003; 76(5): 1490 - 1497. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. H. Blackstone, D. M. Cosgrove, W.R. E. Jamieson, N. J. Birkmeyer, J. H. Lemmer Jr, D. C. Miller, E. G. Butchart, G. Rizzoli, M. Yacoub, and A. Chai Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2003; 126(3): 783 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. G. Williams, B. W. McCrindle, D. A. Ashburn, R. A. Jonas, C. Mavroudis, and E. H. Blackstone Outcomes of 829 neonates with complete transposition of the great arteries 12-17 years after repair Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, July 1, 2003; 24(1): 1 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Lim, Z. A. Ali, C. W. Barlow, C. H. Jackson, A.-R. Hosseinpour, J. C. Halstead, J. B. Barlow, and F. C. Wells A simple model to predict coronary disease in patients undergoing operation for mitral regurgitation Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2003; 75(6): 1820 - 1825. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Adams and F. Filsoufi Another chapter in an enlarging book: Repair degenerative mitral valves J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2003; 125(6): 1197 - 1199. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gillinov, C. Faber, P. L. Houghtaling, E. H. Blackstone, B.-K. Lam, R. Diaz, B. W. Lytle, J. F. Sabik III, and D. M. Cosgrove III Repair versus replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease with coexisting ischemic heart disease J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2003; 125(6): 1350 - 1362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gillinov, E. H. Blackstone, D. M. Cosgrove III, J. White, P. Kerr, A. Marullo, P. M. McCarthy, and B. W. Lytle Mitral valve repair with aortic valve replacement is superior to double valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2003; 125(6): 1372 - 1387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Gillinov, E. H. Blackstone, J. M. Alster, J. M. Craver, W. A. Baumgartner, S. A. Brewster, L. H. Kleinman, and N. G. Smedira The Carbomedics Top Hat supraannular aortic valve: a multicenter study Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2003; 75(4): 1175 - 1180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. A. Ferraris and S. P. Ferraris Risk Stratification and Comorbidity Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 187 - 224. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. Umana, D. C. Miller, and R. S. Mitchell What is the best treatment for patients with acute type B aortic dissections--medical, surgical, or endovascular stent-grafting? Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 2002; 74(5): S1840 - S1843. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. C. Patel, A. P. Deodhar, A. D. Grayson, D. M. Pullan, D. J.M. Keenan, R. Hasan, and B. M. Fabri Neurological outcomes in coronary surgery: independent effect of avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2002; 74(2): 400 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. K. Banbury, D. M. Cosgrove III, J. D. Thomas, E. H. Blackstone, J. Rajeswaran, J. E. Okies, and R. M. Frater Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2002; 73(5): 1460 - 1465. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. H. Blackstone and T. W. Rice Clinical-pathologic conference: Use and choice of statistical methods for the clinical study, ""Superficial adenocarcinoma of the esophagus"" J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., December 1, 2001; 122(6): 1063 - 1076. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |
