ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Early outcomes of emergency coronary artery bypass grafting based on institutional technique selection: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic 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
backgroundEmergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in high-risk patients remains a major perioperative challenge, and surgical strategy is often determined by clinical and anatomical factors rather than randomization. This study aimed to describe early outcomes of emergency CABG within a structured institutional technique selection framework.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 59 consecutive patients who underwent emergency isolated CABG between 2004 and 2007. Patients were allocated to on-pump (n = 39) or off-pump (n = 20) CABG according to a predefined institutional algorithm incorporating hemodynamic status, coronary anatomy, and comorbidities. Outcomes are presented descriptively, and between-group comparisons are interpreted in the context of inherent selection bias.
resultsSubstantial baseline and procedural differences were observed between groups, reflecting structured technique selection rather than random allocation. Patients undergoing on-pump CABG had more complex coronary anatomy and higher clinical acuity, including all four cardiogenic shock cases and 92.6% of triple-vessel grafting procedures. Longer operative time, increased inotropic support, and longer hospital stay were observed in the on-pump group; CK-MB levels at 1 h were lower in the off-pump group. In-hospital mortality was low and comparable (7.7% vs. 5.0%, p = 1.000). Given the marked selection bias and limited sample size, these findings should be considered descriptive rather than comparative.
conclusionIn this historical cohort of emergency CABG patients, both on-pump and off-pump techniques were feasible within a structured institutional selection framework. Observed differences in early outcomes likely reflect underlying patient characteristics rather than intrinsic superiority of either technique. These findings highlight the importance of individualized, algorithm-guided decision-making in emergency surgical revascularization.
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.