ArticleZeitschrift fur Kardiologie2004
[Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Comparison of 270 case-matched elderly patients].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Isolated coronary surgery in the octogenarian. Immediate results and analysis of long-term survival rate and quality of life].The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2008Article
- Coronary reoperation with and without cardiopulmonary bypass.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2006Article
- Coronary surgery in dialysis-dependent patients with end stage renal failure.Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie · 2005Article
- Diabetes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Impact on perioperative outcome.Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOff-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: it still remains a matter of debate which method results in a lower incidence of perioperative morbidity and mortality. This case-matched study evaluates the outcome of elderly patients in both groups.
methodsAll patients aged 75 and older, who underwent CABG from 1998 to 2002, were examined retrospectively. They were matched according to Euroscore and the number of diseased vessels. The Student's t-test and chi-square test were used where appropriate.
results270 CABG patients were considered: 135 off-pump and 135 on-pump patients. Mean age was 78.4 +/- 3.1 versus 77.5 +/- 2.9 years, respectively. EuroSCORE was 7.11 +/- 2.3 in both groups; number of distal anastomoses per patient 1.7 +/- 0.74 versus 2.6 +/- 0.63 (p < 0.001), operation time 138 versus 177 minutes (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications including hospital mortality 3.0 versus 3.7%, renal failure 8.9 versus 12.1% (new onset), acute myocardial infarction 1.5 versus 4.4% and cerebral events 0 versus 1.5%, respectively. The number of transfused packed cells was 2.6 +/- 2.8 versus 4.6 +/- 5.3 (p < 0.001). Intubation time and ICU stay were similar in both groups.
conclusionOPCAB is not associated with a reduction of perioperative mortality and morbidity in patients aged 75 and older.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15338147What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.