Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23439278›Full record

ArticleHSR proceedings in intensive care & cardiovascular anesthesia2012

Coronary artery surgery: now and in the next decade.

J C Ennker, I C Ennker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HSR proceedings in intensive care & cardiovascular anesthesia, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Surgical treatment concepts for heart failure.HSR proceedings in intensive care & cardiovascular anesthesia · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J C EnnkerMediClin Heart Institute Lahr/Baden, Lahr, Germany ; Institute of Cardiovascular Medicine, University Witten-Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
I C Ennker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In coronary artery surgery the superiority of the internal mammary artery graft in 10-year survival was documented in 1986. In 1999 it was demonstrated that death, reoperation and percutaneous transluminary coronary angioplasty were more frequent in patients undergoing single rather than bilateral internal mammary artery grafting. Today coronary artery bypass grafting surgery is challenged by the success story of modern interventional cardiology. The Syntax Study, however, clearly underlined the better outcome for patients with triple-vessel and/or left main disease undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting in terms of repeat revascularization. Another point of ongoing discussion is the comparison between on-pump and off-pump coronary artery revascularization techniques. Even if mixed results exists in the literature, in experienced hands the combination of aortic no-touch and total arterial revascularization, probably leads to the superiority in off pump coronary artery bypass grafting in terms of significantly decreased rates of mortality, stroke, major adverse cardiac and cerebral vascular events. Coronary artery surgery in the next decade will be influenced by the further progression of minimally invasive surgical principles and by a variety of other factors. The role of robotics and hybrid surgery has yet to be defined. Alternatives within surgery will not only need to move to a less disruptive strategy (e.g. from on-pump to off-pump bypass) but also have to secure sustained innovation, as we can be sure that the current coronary artery bypass grafting activity will change substantially.

Indexed as

coronary artery revascularizationfuture aspects

Identifiers

PMID23439278
PMCPMC3563555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.