ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2017
Postoperative Renal Outcomes of On-Pump Beating-Heart versus Cardioplegic Arrest Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- On-pump beating heart versus conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Article
- Prediction model for acute kidney injury after coronary artery bypass grafting: a retrospective study.International urology and nephrology · 2019Article
- Predictors of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation after Beating-Heart Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Is Cardiopulmonary Bypass a Risk Factor?Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2019Article
- Which Procedure, or Which Patient?Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2017Article
- Early and Medium Outcomes of On-Pump Beating-Heart versus Off-Pump CABG in Patients with Moderate Left Ventricular Dysfunction.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgeryObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this investigation is to compare the postoperative renal outcomes after on-pump beating- heart versus conventional cardioplegic arrest coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
methodsBetween January 2010 and December 2012, 254 patients who underwent isolated CABG were enrolled. The primary outcome was postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) within 7 days [defined by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline] and loss of kidney function at 1 year (defined as > 20% loss in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline preoperative creatinine level).
resultsThere was less AKI found for the on-pump beating-heart CABG (30.2% versus 46.3%; p = 0.010) group; with significant less stage I AKI (17.6% versus 29.5%; p = 0.035); a trend of less stage II AKI (4.4% versus 10.5%; p = 0.088) and no significant difference in stage III AKI (8.2% versus 6.3%; p = 0.587). The on-pump beating-heart group also had less patients who have lost their kidney function at 1 year (24.8% versus 41.2%; p = 0.021). Furthermore, multivariate analysis identified conventional arrest CABG is an independent risk factor for postoperative AKI and loss of kidney function at 1 year.
conclusionsOn-pump beating-heart CABG has superior short-term and mid-term renal outcomes than conventional cardioplegic arrest 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.