ArticleBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2022
Thirty-day Outcomes of On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: an Analysis of a Brazilian Sample by Propensity Score Matching.
Article in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Reduced Ventricular Function: The Devil Is in The Details.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Survival and Mid-Term Outcomes of On Pump vs. Off Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis in A First Peruvian Registry.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Observational
- Cardiovascular Statistics - Brazil 2023.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Outcomes Following On-Pump Versus Of-Pump CABG: Apprising the "Bypassed".Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of in-hospital outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery in elders and younger patients: a multicenter retrospective study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with and without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) support has been widely discussed in the literature. However, little is known about the outcomes of those techniques in Brazil. This study aims at exploring 30-day mortality and morbidity outcomes of on- and off-pump isolated CABG in a large sample from Southern Brazil.
methodsA single-center cohort with 1,767 patients undergoing isolated CABG (January 2013 - December 2018) was initially evaluated. Patients undergoing off-pump (N=397) and on-pump (N=1,370) CABG were identified. To obtain two completely homogeneous study groups, propensity score matching was used. The paired groups were compared by descriptive and univariate analyses. Then, logistic regression was used to verify the effects of on- and off-pump CABG on 30-day mortality.
resultsNone of the baseline characteristics showed significant difference between the groups (P>0.05). None of the analyzed morbidity outcomes showed any difference between the groups, including acute myocardial infarction (3.0% vs. 1.5%; P=0.192), stroke (2.4% vs. 4.2%; P=0.193), and major reoperation (0.6% vs. 0.3%; P=1.000), as well as the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events composite outcome (6.3% vs. 7.5%; P=0.541). Mortality also did not differ (1.5% vs. 2.4%; P=0.401), and CPB support was not an independent predictor of risk for 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 2.052; 95% confidence interval: 0,609-6.913; P=0.246).
conclusionAfter matching by propensity analyses, similar rates of on- and off-pump 30-day mortality and other major outcomes were observed. In addition, the use of CPB support was not an independent predictor of risk for the occurrence of 30-day mortality.
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.