Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
matching) that our colleagues used to perform their post-hoc analysis. But in our study we conducted two completely different risk-adjusted analyses, one of which was entirely ignored by them. Besides the propensity score matching (n ¼ 1,040), we performed multivariate logistic regression to identify those predictors of mediastinitis (as shown in Table 2 of the article) using the entire population (n ¼ 3,118). In this analysis, the use of BITA was shown not be a risk factor for mediastinitis (odds ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8 to 3.4, p ¼ 0.191), further supporting our finding in the propensity-matched analysis. The calculated statistical power with use of a two-sample proportion comparison for two-sided equality was 71% for the entire population (ie, there was a 29% of probability of incorrectly concluding that there was no adverse effect [mediastinitis] when actually BITA were used for myocardial revascularization).In this effort to clarify the relationship between BITA use and mediastinitis, the long-term benefit of BITA should also be included. In this respect, our experience published last year in this journal showed a 10% benefit with the use of BITA regarding long-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.87; p < 0.001) [4]. Finally, considering that mediastinitis is, indeed, a life-threatening adverse event, any increase in the incidence of mediastinitis in the BITA group must be weighed against its long-term benefit, and this is what is truly clinically important for cardiovascular surgeons.
matching) that our colleagues used to perform their post-hoc analysis. But in our study we conducted two completely different risk-adjusted analyses, one of which was entirely ignored by them. Besides the propensity score matching (n ¼ 1,040), we performed multivariate logistic regression to identify those predictors of mediastinitis (as shown in Table 2 of the article) using the entire population (n ¼ 3,118). In this analysis, the use of BITA was shown not be a risk factor for mediastinitis (odds ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8 to 3.4, p ¼ 0.191), further supporting our finding in the propensity-matched analysis. The calculated statistical power with use of a two-sample proportion comparison for two-sided equality was 71% for the entire population (ie, there was a 29% of probability of incorrectly concluding that there was no adverse effect [mediastinitis] when actually BITA were used for myocardial revascularization).In this effort to clarify the relationship between BITA use and mediastinitis, the long-term benefit of BITA should also be included. In this respect, our experience published last year in this journal showed a 10% benefit with the use of BITA regarding long-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.87; p < 0.001) [4]. Finally, considering that mediastinitis is, indeed, a life-threatening adverse event, any increase in the incidence of mediastinitis in the BITA group must be weighed against its long-term benefit, and this is what is truly clinically important for cardiovascular surgeons.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.