ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2024
Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents for coronary artery revascularization.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the clinical efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of left main coronary artery and/or triple-vessel disease (LM and/or TVD).
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 1484 consecutive patients with LM and/or TVD in Shanxi Cardiovascular Hospital from January 2015 to December 2022 and divided them into the OPCAB group (n = 583) and the PCI group (with second-generation drug-eluting stents) (n = 901). Propensity score matching was used for 316 equally matched pairs of patients in the groups. The outcomes were all-cause and cardiac mortality, angina recurrence, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, which comprised non-lethal myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization.
resultsThe mean follow-up was 3.93 years in the OPCAB group and 4.19 years in the PCI group. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, or non-lethal myocardial infarction between the groups. The incidence of repeat revascularization and angina recurrence was higher in the PCI group than in the OPCAB group. However, the incidence of stroke was higher in the OPCAB group than in the PCI group.
conclusionsOPCAB may be a favorable coronary revascularization strategy for LM and/or TVD.
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.