ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Hybrid coronary revascularization vs. PCI in high-risk multivessel coronary artery disease: a two-center, two-year utcome comparison.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) include percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and the increasingly adopted hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR). HCR combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-to-left anterior descending (LAD) grafting with PCI of non-LAD lesions. However, comparative evidence in high-risk MV-CAD remains limited. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 330 high-risk MV-CAD patients from two centers (HCR Results: Baseline demographics and SYNTAX scores were similar between groups. HCR involved fewer and shorter stents than PCI. Hospital stay, ICU duration, and total costs were higher with HCR. At 2 years, angina (5.5% vs. 17.2%; Conclusions: Despite longer hospitalization and higher costs, HCR was associated with superior long-term symptom relief and lower MACCE compared with PCI in high-risk MV-CAD. These findings support HCR as a viable strategy in carefully selected patients and warrant validation in prospective multicenter studies.
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.