ArticleThe Annals of thoracic surgery2026
Endoscopic Versus Open Radial Artery Harvesting: A Population-Level Analysis.
Article in The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Chronic Neuropathy of the Lateral Antebrachial Cutaneous Nerve after Endoscopic Radial Artery Harvest: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite increasing radial artery use in multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the optimal harvesting technique remains uncertain. We compared short- and long-term outcomes after multivessel CABG using endoscopic vs open radial artery harvesting at the population level.
methodsIn the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database, 6840 adults underwent isolated, first-time, multivessel, nonemergent CABG with radial artery use between 2015 and 2022: 3938 (57.6%) underwent endoscopic and 2902 (42.4%) underwent open radial harvest. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiac events defined as death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization at 5 years, compared after propensity matching on 26 variables in a Cox proportional hazards model. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, 30-day mortality, and 1-year wound and vascular complications.
resultsEndoscopic patients were younger (median, 69 [interquartile range-IQR, 66-73] years vs 70 [IQR, 66-74] years, P = .002), less likely female (16.8% vs 19.3%, P = .008), and had lower prevalence of heart failure (27% vs 30.6%, P = .001). Propensity matching yielded 2776 well-balanced pairs. Endoscopic patients had shorter hospital stays (6 [IQR, 5-9] days vs 7 [IQR, 5-9] days, P = .02), similar 30-day mortality (1.4% vs 1.2%, P = .35), and similar 1-year wound (4.0% vs 4.8%, P = .12) and vascular complications (0.3% vs 0.4%, P = .65) compared to open harvest. Five-year freedom from major adverse cardiac events was equal between groups (81.1% vs 80.8%, hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.18; P = .83).
conclusionsThere were no differences in late major adverse cardiac events with endoscopic compared to open radial artery harvesting in patients undergoing multivessel CABG.
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.