ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Late Clinical Outcomes of Total Arterial Revascularization or Multiple Arterial Grafting Compared to Conventional Single Arterial with Saphenous Vein Grafting for Coronary Surgery.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization in long-term survival after multiple arterial grafting in coronary artery bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Asian cardiovascular & thoracic annals · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Survival Outcomes After Multiple vs Single Arterial Grafting Among Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Off-pump total arterial bypass grafting for the elderly does not improve life expectancy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary surgery provides better long-term outcomes than percutaneous coronary intervention. Conventional practice is to use a single arterial conduit supplemented by saphenous vein grafts. The use of multiple arterial revascularization (MAG), or exclusive arterial revascularization (TAR), however, is reported as having improved late survival. Survival is a surrogate for graft failure that may lead to premature death, and improved survival reflects fewer graft failures in the non-conventional strategy groups. The reasons for not using MAG or TAR may be due to perceived technical difficulties, a lack of definitive large-scale randomized evidence, a lack of confidence in arterial conduits, or resources or time constraints. Most people consider radial artery (RA) grafting to be new, with use representing approximately 2-5% worldwide, despite select centers reporting routine use in most patients for decades with improved results. In conclusion, the current body of evidence supports more extensive use of total and multiple arterial revascularization procedures in the absence of contraindications.
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.