ReviewPakistan journal of medical sciences
Outcomes of total arterial revascularization vs conventional revascularization in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A narrative review of major studies.
Review in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Myocardial Revascularization in 2025: A Clinical Perspective on the Evolution of Technologies, Strategic Decision-Making, and Future Horizons.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- The effect of the 5A self-management model on treatment adherence and self-care in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A RCT study protocol.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Quintuple Arterial Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Non-touch Aortic Technique.Cureus · 2025Article
- All arterial versus non-total arterial coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2025Review
- A Single-Surgeon Experience Transitioning to Total Arterial Revascularization.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a widely used surgical procedure which improves clinical outcomes in appropriately selected patients. Conventionally, the greater saphenous vein is often used in CABG. However, due to their higher long-term patency rates, arterial conduits are routinely used, with the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) on left anterior descending (LAD) being the gold standard in CABG. Our aim in the present work was to investigate the outcomes of a total arterial grafting (TAG) on the whole heart, with no use of venous grafts, compared to mixed conduits in real-world data. A literature search was conducted in the bibliographic databases PubMed and Web of Science. Only studies comparing TAG with conventional CABG (at least one venous graft plus one or more arterial grafts), with at least one hundred patients in each group were included in this review. After study selection, a total of 15 relevant studies were evaluated and discussed in the present review. Results indicated that TAG is a highly efficient technique, and multiple arterial grafts can be used to reliably revascularize all coronary artery territories. TAG was more beneficial in terms of both short and long-term outcomes and its use should be encouraged. Large randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the superiority of total arterial grafting with regard to long-term outcomes.
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.