ReviewCureus2023
Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Combined With Mitral Valve Repair Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Alone in Patients With Moderate Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mitral repair with annuloplasty for moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation in people undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Article
- Sjögren's Syndrome Overlap With Lupus Nephritis: A Case Report and Literature Review of a Rare Entity.Cureus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes between those who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) alone and CABG with mitral valve repair (MVR) in patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. The present study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two authors performed a comprehensive search of international databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, for relevant studies published from inception to March 1, 2023. The search was performed again before the submission of the manuscript on March 20, 2023. Primary outcomes assessed in the present meta-analysis included early mortality and long-term mortality. Secondary outcomes assessed in the present meta-analysis included change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) score from baseline, change in ejection fraction (EF) from baseline (%), and major cardiovascular events (MACE). A total of 13 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Out of 13 included studies, four were randomized control trials (RCTs) and nine were retrospective cohort studies. The pooled analysis showed that early mortality was significantly lower in patients in the CABG group compared to the CABG+MVR group (risk ratio [RR]: 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31, 0.70). Long-term mortality was also lower in patients who underwent CABG compared to patients in the CABG+MVR group. However, the difference was statistically insignificant (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.77, 1.02). No significant differences were reported in the EF score between patients who underwent CABG and patients who underwent CABG plus MVR (mean difference [MD]: 0.40, 95% CI: -1.90, 2.69). NYHA score was significantly lower in patients in the CABG+repair group compared to the CABG alone group (MD: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.72). In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that concomitant MVR during CABG may not improve clinical outcomes in patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. Further clinical trials are needed to investigate this intervention in more detail.
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.