ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Comparison of multiple arterial grafts vs. single arterial graft in coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of multiarterial versus single-arterial grafting in coronary artery bypass surgery.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Impact of Prior Myocardial Infarction on Outcomes Following Multiple Arterial Coronary Bypass Grafting: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Comparison in trends and outcomes of multiple vs. single arterial coronary bypass graft surgery.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the outcomes of multiple arterial grafts (MAG) vs. single arterial grafts (SAG) in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases for RCTs that directly compared MAG and SAG. The clinical outcomes assessed included all-cause mortality, cardiac-specific mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, stroke, sternal wound complications, and major bleeding. Outcomes were measured using hazard ratios (HR), relative risks (RR), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Eighteen RCTs involving 10,143 patients were included in the analysis. The follow-up period ranged from 6 months to 12.6 years, and the average age of the patients across the studies ranged between 56.3 and 77.3 years. MAG and SAG did not differ significantly in terms of the incidence of sternal wound complications, major bleeding, or stroke following CABG. However, the MAG group demonstrated a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, MI, and repeat revascularization compared with the SAG group. MAG was associated with higher survival, lower risk of MI, and fewer repeat revascularization. Nonetheless, there were no significant differences in the incidence of sternal wound infections, major bleeding, and stroke between MAG and SAG.
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.