ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2021
On-pump beating heart versus conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative High-Volume Diuresis During Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Risk Factors and Clinical Impact.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Preferred age for beating-heart atrial septal defect repair via right subaxillary mini-incision in pediatric patients.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- No-Touch Aorta Off-Pump LIMA-Radial Artery Y-Graft CABG as a Safe Strategy for All-Comers: Long-Term Survival.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Short-term and long-term outcomes of on-pump beating-heart coronary artery bypass surgery in dialysis and non-dialysis patients: a retrospective study in a single center.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
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
backgroundA hybrid surgery method, on-pump beating heart coronary artery bypass graft (ON-BH CABG), is supposed to be a promising technology for coronary artery revascularization. Here, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of the data derived from published studies on ON-BH CABG and conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (C-CABG) to compare their short-term and long-term clinical outcomes.
methodsWe searched major electronic databases and 24 studies incorporating 6,862 patients (1,847 ON-BH CABG and 5,015 C-CABG) were included eventually, and 9 studies of them were focusing on high-risk patients.
resultsCompared with ON-BH CABG, C-CABG was associated with a higher risk in early mortality [odds ratio (OR), 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09 to 1.93; P=0.01], myocardial infarction (MI) (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.41 to 4.78; P<0.01), low output syndrome (LOS) (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.55 to 4.23; P<0.01), renal failure (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38 to 2.44; P<0.01). In contrast, there was no significant difference in long-term survival [hazard ratio (HR), 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.43; P=0.60]. In systematic analysis of the studies in high-risk patients, ON-BH CABG showed a lower risk in terms of early mortality, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) usage, renal failure, hemodialysis, MI and pulmonary complication. No significant difference was observed in the long-term survival between ON-BH CABG and C-CABG.
conclusionsWith experienced and adept surgical team and mature ON-BH technology, ON-BH CABG may reduce the risk of postoperative death and complications in some patients. It might be an attractive alternative for high-risk patient populations.
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.