ReviewJournal of chest surgery2026
Complete Revascularization in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff.
Review in Journal of chest surgery, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been established as the most effective treatment for patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease. To maximize outcomes by restoring perfusion to the largest possible myocardial territory, complete revascularization (CR) has long been a key objective of CABG. Because the anatomic severity of coronary artery stenosis on coronary angiography has been the main criterion for selecting target vessels for several decades, the definition of CR has traditionally been based on angiographic anatomy. Numerous studies have examined the impact of anatomic CR on outcomes after CABG; however, the results remain controversial. At the same time, there has been increasing interest in ischemia-inducing coronary artery stenosis assessed by functional studies such as dobutamine-stress echocardiography, nuclear imaging tests, fractional flow reserve, and quantitative flow ratio. This has raised the importance of defining CR based on functional ischemia rather than anatomic stenosis. Nevertheless, only a few studies have reported the impact of functional CR on CABG outcomes. Therefore, this narrative review summarizes the various definitions of CR in CABG, highlights its benefits and shortcomings, and introduces the available literature evaluating the effects of anatomic and functional CR on long-term clinical outcomes.
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.