ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Sutureless versus Hand-Sewn Coronary Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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.
- Preclinical Feasibility of the ELANA End-to-End Anastomotic Technique in a Porcine Pilot Study.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Robotic hand-sewn anastomosis versus anastomotic connector in beating-heart totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass: A propensity-matched study.JTCVS structural and endovascular · 2025Article
- Sutureless vascular anastomotic approaches and their potential impacts.Bioactive materials · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSutureless coronary anastomotic devices are intended to facilitate minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS-CABG) by easing and eventually standardizing the anastomotic technique. Within this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to determine patency and to evaluate safety outcomes for the sutureless anastomoses.
methodsCENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched from database start till August 2021 in a predefined search strategy combining the key concepts: 'coronary artery bypass grafting', 'sutureless coronary anastomoses', and 'hand-sewn coronary anastomoses' by the Boolean operation 'AND'. Study characteristics, patient demographics, interventional details, and all available outcome data were extracted. A meta-analysis was performed on patency at longest follow-up. Safety outcomes were presented.
resultsA total of eleven trials towards six sutureless anastomotic devices were included, comprising 3724 patients (490 sutureless and 3234 hand-sewn). There was no significant difference in patency at a mean follow-up duration of 546.3 (range 1.5-2691) days, with a risk ratio of 0.77 (95% CI 0.55-1.06). MACE was reported in 4.5% sutureless and 3.9% hand-sewn patients, including all-cause mortality (resp. 1.3 vs. 1.9%), myocardial infarction (resp. 1.6 vs. 1.7%), and coronary revascularization (resp. 1.8 vs. 0.5%). Incomplete hemostasis occurred in 24.8% of the sutureless anastomoses. Intra-operative device failure forced conversion to hand-sewn or redo-anastomosis in 5.8% of the sutureless cases.
conclusionBased on the systematic review and meta-analysis including six devices, we conclude that sutureless coronary anastomotic devices appear safe and effective when used by well-trained and dedicated surgical teams.
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.