ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2025
Bilateral sceletonized internal mammary arteries for myocardial revascularization in elderly patients.
Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMAs) as the most advanced surgical option for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are usually recommended for younger patients without traditional risk factors. This study compares outcomes in propensity score-matched patients aged over 70 years who received BIMAs versus those who received a single internal mammary artery (SIMA).
methodsFrom 2013 to 2024, 8123 patients underwent primary CABG for multivessel coronary artery disease at our institution. BIMA grafting was performed in 1233 patients (15.17%), with
resultsThere was no difference in immediate postoperative primary and secondary outcomes. Mean follow-up was 8.3 ± 1.0 years with an 8-year freedom from death of 67.08% ± 1.1% in the BIMA group versus 58.22% ± 0.9% in the SIMA group (
conclusionsBIMAs 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.