ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
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.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the effects of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPC) on clinical efficacy, cardiac function and the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with coronary heart disease.
methodsAccording to different surgical methods, 93 patients with coronary heart disease who were hospitalized and treated in our hospital were collapsed into the off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting group (OPC group) and the extracorporeal circulation coronary artery bypass grafting group (PC group). The perioperative indexes, cardiac function indexes, postoperative recovery, quality of life, the incidence of MACE and adverse reactions and the survival rate of patients in PC group and OPC group were analyzed and compared.
resultsCompared with the PC group, the operation time and blood transfusion volume of OPC group were both largely decreased (P<0.05), but the number of bypass grafts was similar (P>0.05). The cardiac function index of OPC group was much higher than that of PC group (P<0.05). The postoperative recovery after operation of OPC group was better than that of PC group (P<0.05). The scores of quality of life scale in OPC group were markedly higher than those in PC group (P<0.05). The incidence of MACE in OPC group was obviously lower than that in PC group (P<0.05). Patients in in the OPC group had slightly lower incidence of adverse reactions, and slightly higher survival rate than the PC group, but there was no statistical difference (P>0.05).
conclusionCompared with PC, OPC has a significantly better therapeutic effect on patients with coronary heart disease, which can significantly improve the perioperative indices and cardiac function, and enhance the quality of life of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33841697PMC8014410What 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.