Trial reportAmerican heart journal2020
Outcomes following revascularization with radial artery bypass grafts: Insights from the PREVENT-IV trial.
Trial report in American heart journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vein Graft Preservation During Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Operative Techniques, Biomaterials and Advances from Tissue Engineering.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Multivessel coronary artery disease: Teamwork makes the dream work.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Article
- Bilateral internal mammary arteries for coronary artery bypass grafting: One size does not fit all.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2023Article
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 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal role of radial artery grafts in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to examine angiographic and clinical outcomes following CABG among patients who received a radial artery graft.
methodsPatients in the angiographic cohort of the PREVENT-IV trial were stratified based upon having received a radial artery graft or not during CABG. Baseline characteristics and 1-year angiographic and 5-year clinical outcomes were compared between patients.
resultsOf 1,923 patients in the angiographic cohort of PREVENT-IV, 117 received a radial artery graft. These patients had longer surgical procedures (median 253 vs 228 minutes, P < .001) and had a greater number of grafts placed (P < .0001). Radial artery grafts had a graft-level failure rate of 23.0%, which was similar to vein grafts (25.2%) and higher than left internal mammary artery grafts (8.3%). The hazard of the composite clinical outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization was similar for both cohorts (adjusted hazard ratio 0.896, 95% CI 0.609-1.319, P = .58). Radial graft failure rates were higher when used to bypass moderately stenotic lesions (<75% stenosis, 37% failure) compared with severely stenotic lesions (≥75% stenosis, 15% failure).
conclusionsRadial artery grafts had early failure rates comparable to saphenous vein and higher than left internal mammary artery grafts. Use of a radial graft was not associated with a different rate of death, myocardial infarction, or postoperative revascularization. Despite the significant potential for residual confounding associated with post hoc observational analyses of clinical trial data, these findings suggest that when clinical circumstances permit, the radial artery is an acceptable alternative to saphenous vein and should be used to bypass severely stenotic target vessels.
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.