ReviewJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2015
Current randomized control trials, observational studies and meta analysis in off-pump coronary surgery.
Review 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term Results of Ivabradine versus Metoprolol: The Effects on Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Left Ventricular Myocardial Work Performance in Patients Undergoing On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2020Observational
- Effects of Preoperative Statin on Acute Kidney Injury After Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The off-pump literature is divided into three eras: the "early phase" with results favouring off-pump surgery supported with randomized control trials (RCTs) mainly from Bristol, UK; an "intermediate phase" dominated by the results of the ROOBY trial and finally a more "contemporary phase" whereby the off/on-pump argument is unsettled. Although the literature has failed to project an overall superiority of off-pump versus on-pump surgery, nevertheless, small randomized control trials and large meta-analysis studies are concluding that the incidence of a stroke is less than 1 % when an aortic off-pump techniques (especially the non-touch technique) are advocated in patients with diseased ascending aorta. Furthermore, off-pump combined with hybrid procedures may lead to a reduction of adverse outcome in the aged high-risk population with concomitant poor left ventricular function and co-morbidities.The current review attempts to bring an insight onto the last ten years knowledge on the on/off-pump debate, with an aim to draw some clear conclusions in order to allow practitioners to reflect on the subject.
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.