ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2025
A survey on perioperative antibiotic use for minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Empyema space rate: a quantitative predictor of postoperative drainage duration after surgery for acute empyema.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the use of antimicrobials during the perioperative period of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) and traditional open-heart bypass grafting. We aimed to determine whether the duration of perioperative antibiotic use and infection rate is significantly different between different surgical methods.
methodsA total of 471 cases of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were collected from January 2019 to December 2022. Patients were divided into minimally invasive group (229 cases) and a conventional group (242 cases) according to the type of surgery. We compared differences in the duration of antimicrobial use and infection rates between the two groups.
resultsCompared with the conventional group, the minimally invasive group had a significantly shorter average duration of antimicrobial therapy [(1.95 ± 2.40) d vs. (4.67 ± 5.89) d, P < 0.001], a higher rate of short antibiotic treatment duration (T ≤ 24 h) [51.97% vs. 7.02%, P < 0.001], lower postoperative pneumonia rate [38.86% vs. 56.20%, P < 0.001], lower positive rate of blood and surgical site sample culture (1 case and 0 case) vs. (7 cases and 3 cases), P < 0.001. Subgroup analysis of different durations of antimicrobial treatment (T ≤ 24 h, 24 h < T ≤ 48 h, and 48 h < T ≤ 96 h) in the minimally invasive group showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infection among the various medication durations (P > 0.05).
conclusionCompared with traditional surgery, MICS CABG requires a significantly shorter duration of perioperative antibiotic treatment duration and a reduced incidence of infection. Extending the duration of antibiotic treatment did not reduce the incidence of infection.
trial registrationchictr.org.cn ChiCTR2400091571.
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.