Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2019
Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis With Long-Term Follow-up.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 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
- Review
- Current trends in hybrid coronary revascularization.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025Review
- The Role of Myocardial Revascularization in Ischemic Heart Failure in the Era of Modern Optimal Medical Therapy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Generalized hybrid coronary revascularization vs. conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Comparing the Effectiveness of Open and Minimally Invasive Approaches in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
- Five-Year Survival of Patients Treated with Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass (MIDCAB) Compared with the General Swiss Population.The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon · 2024Article
- Early and late outcomes after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass vs. full sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Staged Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndrome.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2023Article
- Robotically assisted hybrid coronary revascularization-Masterly technique but is it for the masses?Journal of cardiac surgery · 2022Article
- The Impact of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia on Cardiac Surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- In patients with multi-vessel coronary artery diseases, does hybrid revascularization provide similar outcomes to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting?Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2021Article
- 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 Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis With Long-Term Follow-up.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Observational
- Review of Contemporary Techniques for Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularization.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Review
- Nationwide Short-Term and Midterm Clinical Outcome Comparison of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.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
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves the integration of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention to treat multivessel coronary artery disease. Our objective was to perform a comparative analysis with long-term follow-up between HCR and conventional off-pump CABG. Methods and Results We compared all double off-pump CABG (n=216) and HCR (n=147; robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct CABG of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending artery and percutaneous coronary intervention to one of the non-left anterior descending vessels) performed at a single institution between March 2004 and November 2015. To adjust for the selection bias of receiving either off-pump CABG or HCR, we performed a propensity score analysis using inverse-probability weighting. Both groups had similar results in terms of re-exploration for bleeding, perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, blood transfusion, in-hospital mortality, and intensive care unit length of stay. HCR was associated with a higher in-hospital reintervention rate (CABG 0% versus HCR 3.4%;
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.