ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Multi-vessel coronary artery grafting: analyzing the minimally invasive approach and its safety.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally invasive cardiac surgery - coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- New Clinical Advances in Minimally Invasive Coronary Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting vs. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies for Ostial Left Anterior Descending Lesions.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Experience in setting up non-robotic minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting in a non-routine off-pump coronary artery bypass center.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- A review of nomenclature in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting-the anarchy of terminology.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: At our institution, we perform off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) as a standard procedure. Moreover, patients with favorable coronary anatomy and condition are selected for minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS)-OPCAB. We retrospectively compared early outcomes, focusing on safety, between MICS-OPCAB and conventional off-pump techniques for multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: From August 2017 to September 2022, 1,220 patients underwent multivessel coronary artery grafting at our institution. They were divided into the MICS-OPCAB group (MICS group = 163 patients) and the conventional OPCAB group (MS group = 1057 patients). Propensity score matching (1 : 1 ratio) was applied to the MICS-OPCAB and MS groups (149 patients per group) based on 23 preoperative clinical characteristics. Results: After matching, there were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the groups. The MICS group had a lower total graft number (2.3 ± 0.6 vs. 2.9 ± 0.8, Conclusion: With proper patient selection, MICS-OPCAB can provide good short to mid-term results, similar to those of conventional OPCAB.
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.