SynthesisMedicine2018
Hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Preclinical Feasibility of the ELANA End-to-End Anastomotic Technique in a Porcine Pilot Study.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Current trends in hybrid coronary revascularization.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025Review
- Hybrid total arterial minimally invasive off-pump coronary revascularization and percutaneous coronary intervention strategy for multivessel coronary artery disease: a cohort study with a median 11-year follow-up.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2024Article
- Article
- Revascularization strategies for patients with established chronic coronary syndrome.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Review
- One-stage hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease- Periprocedural and long-term results from the "HYBRID-COR" feasibility study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularisation Surgery: A Focused Review of the Available Literature.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2021Review
- One-Stop Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Hybrid intervention approach to coronary artery and valvular heart disease.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2020Article
- Comparisons between Insomnia Incidence after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery with Coronary Angioplasty.Advanced biomedical research · 2020Article
- Preclinical Feasibility and Patency Analyses of a New Distal Coronary Connector: The ELANA Heart Bypass.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive grafting of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention has become a viable option for treating coronary artery disease. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a range of clinical outcomes and hospital costs.
methodsTo identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in various databases. The key search terms included "hybrid revascularization" AND "coronary artery bypass grafting" OR "HCR" OR "CABG." This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating the need for blood transfusion, hospital costs, ventilation time, hospital stay, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, renal failure, operation duration, and ICU stay.
resultsThe requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower for HCR: odds ratio 0.38 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.31-0.46, P < .00001) as was the hospital stay: mean difference (MD) -1.48 days (95% CI, -2.61 to -0.36, P = 0.01) and the ventilation time: MD -8.99 hours (95% CI, -15.85 to -2.13, P = .01). On the contrary, hospital costs were more expensive for HCR: MD $3970 (95% CI, 2570-5370, P < .00001). All other comparisons were insignificant.
conclusionsIn the short-term, HCR is as safe as conventional CABG and may offer certain benefits such as a lower requirement for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stays. However, HCR is more expensive than conventional 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.