ArticleThe Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2014
Early and Midterm Outcome of Redo Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: On-Pump versus Off-Pump Bypass.
Article in The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Meta-Analysis of Early, Mid-term and Long-Term Mortality of On-Pump vs. Off-Pump in Redo Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Early health outcome and 10-year survival in patients undergoing redo coronary surgery with or without cardiopulmonary bypass: a propensity score-matched analysis.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRedo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still associated with increased morbidity and mortality as compared to the first-time operation. Further, the application of the off-pump technique to redo CABG is limited due to technical difficulties. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze early and midterm results after redo CABG and compare the outcome of redo on-pump and off-pump CABG.
methodsFrom June 1996 to October 2011, elective redo CABG was performed in 32 patients. Mean age was 64.8 years (on pump 64.3 years vs. off pump 65.5 years; p=0.658), and 21 patients were male. Among these patients, 14 (43.8%) underwent on-pump CABG, and 18 (56.2%) underwent off-pump CABG.
resultsInternal thoracic artery was used in 22 patients (68.8%), and total arterial revascularization was achieved in 17 patients (53.1%). The average number of distal anastomoses was 2.13, and the rate of incomplete revascularization was 43.8%. The rate of total arterial revascularization was higher in the off-pump group (14.3% vs. 83.3%, p<0.001), and the use of saphenous vein graft was more in the on-pump group (78.6% vs. 16.7%, p<0.001). Overall hospital mortality was 3.1% (n=1) and was comparable in both groups (on pump 7.1% vs. off pump 0%; p=0.249). Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients (64.2%), and the rate of complications was high in the on-pump group without statistical significance (64.2% vs. 33.3%, p=0.082). The mean follow-up duration was 5.4 years, and overall survival at 10 years was 86.0%±10.5%. There was no significant difference in the 10-year survival rate between the two groups (79.6% vs. 100%, p=0.225).
conclusionRedo CABG can be safely performed with acceptable mortality. Redo off-pump coronary artery bypass is feasible with low mortality and morbidity, comparable target vessel bypass grafting, and long-term survival. The off-pump technique might be considered a safe option for redo CABG in high-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.