ArticleThe Annals of thoracic surgery2023
Contemporary Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting vs Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Central veno-arterial ECMO via an aortic prosthetic graft as significant alternative to peripheral ECMO cannulation: evaluation of patient outcomes in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Acute Coronary Syndrome and Bypass Surgery: Recent Advances, Timing, and Indicative Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Revascularization strategies in Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: the clash continues.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Does the Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Impact the Survival of Men and Women Equally Compared to General Population? Results from KROK Registry and Polish Central Statistical Office.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Association of chronic poststernotomy pain and health-related quality of life: a prospective cohort study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterpretation of recent alterations to the guideline priority of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel disease contests historical data and practice. To reevaluate contemporary outcomes, a large contemporary analysis was conducted comparing CABG with multivessel PCI among Medicare beneficiaries.
methodsThe United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database was evaluated all beneficiaries with acute coronary syndrome undergoing isolated CABG or multivessel PCI (2018-2020). Risk adjustment was performed using multilevel regression analysis, Cox proportional hazards time to event models, and inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity scores.
resultsA total of 104,127 beneficiaries were identified undergoing CABG (n = 51,389) or multivessel PCI (n = 52,738). Before risk adjustment, compared with PCI, CABG patients were associated with younger age (72.9 vs 75.2 years, P < .001), higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (5.0 vs 4.2, P < .001), more diabetes (48.5% vs 42.2%, P < .001), higher cost ($54,154 vs $33,484, P < .001), and longer length of stay (11.9 vs 5.8 days, P < .001). After inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score adjustment, compared with PCI, CABG was associated with lower hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.74; P < .001), fewer hospital readmissions at 3 years (odds ratio, 0.85; P < .001), fewer coronary reinterventions (hazard ratio, 0.37; P < .001), and improved 3-year survival (hazard ratio, 0.51; P < .001).
conclusionsContemporary real-world data from Medicare patients with multivessel disease reveal that CABG outcomes were superior to PCI, providing important longitudinal data to guide patient care and policy development.
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.