SynthesisAnnals of medicine2025
Effectiveness of the various revascularization techniques in multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 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.
- Inflammatory Prognostic Index: A Novel Predictor of In-Stent Restenosis Following Drug-Eluting Stent-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) often requires revascularization. However, the effectiveness of various techniques in reducing stroke and achieving complete revascularization remains uncertain. This study aimed to address this gap by comparing key revascularization strategies in terms of early mortality, stroke, complete revascularization, postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF), and renal failure.
methodsThis study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 32 studies including 65,861 patients. Five revascularization techniques were compared: on-pump coronary artery bypass (ONCAB), off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB), OPCAB with proximal anastomotic device (OPCAB-PAD), anaortic OPCAB (anOPCAB), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 and ROBINS-I tools.
resultsCompared to ONCAB, early mortality was significantly lower with anOPCAB (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.44-0.73), OPCAB-PAD (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40-0.92), and OPCAB (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47-0.87). Stroke risk was lowest with anOPCAB (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.21-0.40) and OPCAB-PAD (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.21-0.49). All surgical techniques achieved significantly more complete revascularization than PCI. Both POAF and renal failure were significantly lower with anOPCAB compared to ONCAB (POAF: OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59-0.89; renal failure: OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.86). No significant publication bias was detected for mortality and stroke, though funnel plot asymmetry was noted for revascularization.
conclusionOff-pump techniques, particularly anOPCAB, significantly reduce stroke risk while achieving comparable revascularization success to ONCAB. PCI remains limited by incomplete revascularization, supporting its use primarily in patients at high surgical risk.
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.