ArticleEuropean journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery2025
National Variation in the Use of Multiple Arterial Grafting in Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the United Kingdom.
Article in European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 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.
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
objectivesThe last 2 decades have seen a reduction in the use of multiple arterial grafting (MAG) worldwide. The increase in risk profile in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been suggested as a cause for this limited use. This study aims to evaluate national variation at the surgeon and hospital level in the use of MAG while considering patients' risk profiles.
methodsAll patients who underwent first-time, elective/urgent, isolated CABG in the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2019 were included from the national adult cardiac surgery database. MAG was defined as the use of 2 or more arterial grafts. A 3-level multilevel logistic regression models (level 1: patients, level 2: surgeons, and level 3: hospitals) were used to estimate the variation in the use of MAG at each level.
resultsForty hospitals were identified, in which the MAG use ranged from 0% to 43.79%. A total of 135 978 patients were included in the study, of which 15 310 (11.3%) received MAG. Younger (odds ratio [OR]: 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.06, P < .001), male (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.19, P < .001), and patients with fewer comorbidities and a higher socioeconomic status were more likely to receive MAG. After propensity score matching, there was no differences between patients who received single or MAG in in-hospital survival (0.8% vs 1.1%, P = .11), return to theatre for bleeding (3.3% vs 3.6%, P = .23), post-operative stroke (0.5% vs 0.3%, P = .08), and deep sternal wound infection (0.8% vs 0.8%, P = .66). Overall, surgeons' and hospitals' volumes were not associated with the use of MAG. However, surgeons with a higher volume of off-pump CABG were more likely to offer MAG (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.31-1.42, P < .001). The interclass correlation coefficient was 0.31 at the surgeon level and 0.20 at the hospital level, implying 31% of the variability in the use of MAG is due to systematic differences between surgeons, and 20% due to systematic differences between hospitals.
conclusionsOur results demonstrate a considerable variation in both individual surgeons and hospital levels in the use of MAG. Young males with few comorbidities and higher socioeconomic status were more likely to be recipients of MAG. The use of multiple arterial grafts did not seem to increase the incidence of early in-hospital major complications.
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.