ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus single internal thoracic artery grafting procedures for multivessel coronary artery disease: a single-center retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare two surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization: one by a minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and the other by a conventional full sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
methodsWe reviewed the early outcomes and overall survival of all the patients treated in our center by the above strategies during 2000-2011.
resultsOf 1915 patients, 1752 underwent conventional CABG utilizing a single internal thoracic artery (ITA) graft and 163 underwent a MIDCAB procedure. In the former compared to the latter, the patients were older and the median EuroSCORE was higher. The prevalences were higher of diabetes mellitus, recent myocardial infarction, emergency procedures, the.usage of an intra-aortic balloon pump, redo operations, and peripheral vascular disease; and the prevalences lower of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic renal failure. The median follow-up was 20 years. Early mortality (30 day) was greater in the conventional CABG group (3.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.042); and 10-, 15- and 20-year survival rates were lower: 55.1% vs. 76.7%, 37.1% vs. 63.7%, and 23.1% vs. 53.4%, respectively, p < 0.001. In an analysis that compared two matched groups of 134 patients each, early outcomes were similar, but late survival was lower following conventional CABG compared to MIDCAB after 10, 15 and 20 years: 64.7% vs. 74.6%, 44.7% vs. 64.1%, and 28.4% vs. 53.6% respectively, p = 0.004. In multivariable and univariate analysis, MIDCAB strategy compared to conventional single ITA CABG was associated with better late survival; the hazard ratio was 0.429 (95%CI 0.321-0.574, p < 0.001) for the whole cohort and 0.559 (95%CI: 0.376-0.831, p = 0.004), for the matched cohort.
conclusionsCompared to conventional CABG utilizing a single ITA, the MIDCAB procedure demonstrated early safety and long-term effectiveness for surgical myocardial revascularization of the left anterior descending artery.
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.