SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2021
Angiographic Patency of Coronary Artery Bypass Conduits: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Angiographic Patency of Coronary Artery Bypass Conduits: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Pooled it
- No-touch versus conventional vein in coronary artery bypass grafting: three year follow-up of multicentre randomised PATENCY trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Trial
- Coronary Artery Ectasia and Aneurysm: Benign Variant or High-Risk Substrate in Need of Tailored Treatment?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Article
- Orthotopic Heart Transplantation with Concurrent Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Using In Situ Internal Thoracic Artery.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Determinants of graft patency after coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Optimizing Saphenous Vein Harvesting with the No-Touch Technique Using LigaSure™ and Small Incisions: A Hybrid Approach for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Evidence for a Clinically Meaningful Effect of no-Touch Harvesting Technique on Vein Graft Patency-A Bayesian Reanalysis of the SWEDEGRAFT Trial.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Survival, adverse events and management of silent in-hospital coronary bypass graft occlusion.Open heart · 2025Observational
- Article
- No-Touch Saphenous Vein Graft for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2025Review
- Techniques and Technologies to Improve Vein Graft Patency in Coronary Surgery.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Conduits and Strategies for Arterial Revascularization in CABG.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Is the COMPASS pointing towards clinical equipoise for the right internal mammary artery?Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Article
- Reconstruction Technique Options for Achieving Total Arterial Revascularization and Multiple Arterial Grafting.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Diagnostic and Management Strategies in Patients with Late Recurrent Angina after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- Reply: In search of a better saphenous vein graft.JTCVS open · 2022Article
- The evidence for radial artery grafting: When and when not?JTCVS techniques · 2021Article
- The evolving evidence base for coronary artery bypass grafting and arterial grafting in 2021: How to improve vein graft patency.JTCVS techniques · 2021Article
- Commentary: Intraoperative graft patency assessment: Just do it!JTCVS techniques · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Several randomized trials have compared the patency of coronary artery bypass conduits. All of the published studies, however, have performed pairwise comparisons and a comprehensive evaluation of the patency rates of all conduits has yet to be published. We set out to investigate the angiographic patency rates of all conduits used in coronary bypass surgery by performing a network meta-analysis of the current available randomized evidence. Methods and Results A systematic literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials comparing the angiographic patency rate of the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, the no-touch saphenous vein, the radial artery (RA), the right internal thoracic artery, or the gastroepiploic artery. The primary outcome was graft occlusion. A total of 4160 studies were retrieved of which 14 were included with 3651 grafts analyzed. The weighted mean angiographic follow-up was 5.1 years. Compared with the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, both the RA (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.82) and the no-touch saphenous vein (IRR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.78) were associated with lower graft occlusion. The RA ranked as the best conduit (rank score for RA 0.87 versus 0.85 for no-touch saphenous vein, 0.23 for right internal thoracic artery, 0.29 for gastroepiploic artery, and 0.25 for the conventionally harvested saphenous vein). Conclusions Compared with the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, only the RA and no-touch saphenous vein grafts are associated with significantly lower graft occlusion rates. The RA ranks as the best conduit. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42020164492.
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.