ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2016
The future of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a North American perspective.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term and Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes Following Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass: A Meta-Analysis.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- The Past, Present, and Future of Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Journal of chest surgery · 2025Review
- Revascularization Modalities in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Review of the Current State of Evidence.Cureus · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCAB) is currently performed routinely in a minority of specialized centers and in many more centers, utilized only when a porcelain aorta mandates a no-touch aortic technique. The OPCAB literature can be summarized as follows: (I) large-scale randomized trials in relatively low risk patients that include surgeons with a range of experience demonstrating no consistent beneficial differences in major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular outcomes but lower transfusion rates and shorter length of stay, tempered by some reports of higher rates of incomplete revascularization and lower rates of long term graft patency; (II) smaller randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from highly specialized programs demonstrating equivalent or superior outcomes with OPCAB and similar completeness of revascularization and graft patency; and (III) observational data from large databases demonstrating a consistent benefit of OPCAB, especially in higher-risk patient subsets. Our rationale for OPCAB remains that if complete and precise revascularization can be safely and routinely accomplished, then the patient should benefit by avoiding the morbidities that can be attributed to aortic cannulation/clamping, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), hemodilution, hypothermia and global myocardial ischemia/cardioplegia. We further believe that OPCAB procedures should emphasize the use of arterial grafts to optimize long term patency and minimize aortic manipulation to limit the risk of stroke. Moving forward, the off-pump surgical community and specialty societies must address the challenge of training surgeons and their teams to master this technically demanding procedure. Furthermore, OPCAB opens the door to minimally-invasive surgical revascularization via hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR). A large NIH-funded RCT is currently underway to determine whether hybrid revascularization can offer a superior alternative to multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with low SYNTAX score and proximal LAD disease.
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.