Observational studyBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery
Early and Medium Outcomes of On-Pump Beating-Heart versus Off-Pump CABG in Patients with Moderate Left Ventricular Dysfunction.
Observational study in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery. 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.
- Early and mid-term outcomes of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with triple-vessel coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Trial
- The ebb and flow of cardiac lymphatics: a tidal wave of new discoveries.Physiological reviews · 2023Review
- On-pump beating heart versus off-pump myocardial revascularization-a propensity-matched comparison.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2021Article
- Beating-heart on-pump coronary artery bypass graftingJournal of thoracic disease · 2021Article
- Effects of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on clinical efficacy, cardiac function and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with coronary heart disease.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the early and medium outcomes of on-pump beating-heart (OPBH) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and off-pump CABG (OPCABG) in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 30% and 40%.
methodsThis is a retrospective study of ischemic heart disease patients with LVEF between 30% and 40% who underwent surgical revascularization from January 2013 to December 2017. Patients were divided into OPBH group (n=44) and OPCABG group (n=68), according to the surgical method. Clinical material with early and medium outcomes were investigated and compared between these groups.
resultsThe two groups had similar baseline. Two OPBH patients and 3 OPCABG patients died in the hospital, which had no statistical significance (P>0.05). OPBH patients received a greater number of grafts (3.74±0.84) and presented more improved LVEF (45.92±7.11%) than OPCABG patients (3.36±0.80) and (42.81±9.29%), respectively, which had statistical significance (P<0.05). An increased amount of drainage during the first 12 hours was found in the OPBH group (P<0.05). Reoperation for bleeding, duration of mechanic ventilation, and other early outcomes had no statistical significance between the two groups. During the medium-time follow-up, OPBH patients showed significantly lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival time (P=0.049) than OPCABG patients.
conclusionThe OPBH technique was a safe and an acceptable alternative for surgical revascularization in patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction which provided better mid-term MACE-free survival compared with OPCABG.
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.