ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
How to harvest the left internal mammary artery-a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05562908 (Skeletonised Versus Pedicled Internal Thoracic Artery - A Randomised Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Skeletonised Versus Pedicled Internal Thoracic Artery - A Randomised Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The History of Coronary Artery Disease.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIt is uncertain whether Thunderbeat has a place in harvesting the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and whether skeletonization is superior to pedicle-harvested LIMA. Some investigations have shown improved flowrates in the skeletonized graft. The aim of this study was to compare 3 groups of harvesting techniques: Pedicled, surgical skeletonized and skeletonized with Thunderbeat in terms of flow rates in the LIMA and postoperative in-hospital outcomes.
methodsPatients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with the LIMA to the anterior descending artery were randomized to pedicled (n = 56), surgical skeletonized (n = 55) and skeletonized with Thunderbeat (n = 54). Main outcomes were blood flow and pulsatility index in the graft.
resultsNo statistical difference between groups regarding flow in LIMA or pulsatility index. Similarly, no difference in postoperative bleeding or days of hospitalization. The duration of harvesting was faster for the pedicled technique compared with surgical skeletonized and skeletonized with Thunderbeat [mean total min: pedicled 20.2 min standard deviation (SD) ± 5.4; surgical skeletonized 28.6 min SD ± 8.7; skeletonized with Thunderbeat 28.3 min SD ± 9.11, P < 0.001]. No grafts discarded due to faulty harvesting and there was no graft failure within hospital stay.
conclusionsWe found no difference between the harvesting methods except for a significantly faster harvesting time with the pedicled technique. However, non-touch skeletonized LIMA harvesting with Thunderbeat seems to be an effective alternative to traditional surgical skeletonized LIMA. The future will reveal whether patency is harvesting dependent. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05562908.
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.