SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2015
Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Ten-year outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization at a single center.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Current indications and surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a scoping review.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Revascularization Modalities in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Review of the Current State of Evidence.Cureus · 2023Review
- Staged Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndrome.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2023Article
- Hybrid coronary revascularizationJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2021Article
- Comparison of the internal thoracic artery flow dissected by video endoscopy or conventional technique.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2021Article
- Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis With Long-Term Follow-up.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Observational
- Current landscape of hybrid revascularization: A report from the NCDR CathPCI Registry.American heart journal · 2019Article
- Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of two-vessel coronary artery disease with proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Hybrid myocardial revascularization.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2018Article
- Total Arterial Revascularization: Bypassing Antiquated Notions to Better Alternatives for Coronary Artery Disease.Medical science monitor basic research · 2016Review
- A novel approach to ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR).Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2015Article
- Review of Contemporary Techniques for Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularization.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending (LAD) graft and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD vessels. Multiple comparative studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of HCR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery disease (MCAD). However, the sample size of each study was small, and evidences based on single-institutional experience. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes of HCR with those of CABG for MCAD.
methodPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, as well as conference proceedings, were searched for eligible studies published up to March 2014. We calculated summary odds ratios (OR) for primary endpoints (death, stroke; myocardial infarction (MI); target vessel revascularization (TVR); major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs)) and secondary endpoints (atrial fibrillation (AF); renal failure; length of stay in the intensive care unit (LoS in ICU); length of stay in hospital (LoS in hospital); red blood cell (RBC) transfusion). Data from 6176 participants were derived from ten cohort studies.
resultsHCR was non-inferior to CABG in terms of MACCEs during hospitalization (odds ratio (OR), 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-1.33)and at one-year follow-up(0.32, 0.05-1.89) , and no significant difference was found between HCR and CABG groups in in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcomes of death, MI, stroke, the prevalence of AF and renal failure, whereas HCR was associated with a lower requirement of RBC transfusion and shorter LoS in ICU and LoS in hospital than CABG (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.25, 95% CI, -1.62 to -0.88; -17.47, -31.01 to -3.93; -1.77, -3.07 to -0.46; respectively).
conclusionOur meta-analysis indicates that HCR is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of MCAD, with similar in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcome, significantly lower requirement of RBC transfusion, and faster recovery compared with CABG.
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.