ArticleBMJ neurology open2026
Association of coronary artery bypass with cognitive impairment in coronary artery disease across APO (ε) genotypes in AllofUS.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 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
- Update of
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is a widely performed procedure for coronary artery disease (CAD), yet its association with impaired cognition (IC), that is, mild-cognitive impairment or all-cause dementia, while accounting for apolipoprotein E (APO (ε)) genotype, remains unclear. Methods: We analysed AllofUS participants with CAD (age ≥60 years) from 2017 to 2023. We defined CAD as a history of angina/myocardial infarction/chronic ischaemic heart disease or having percutaneous coronary intervention/CABG, and IC as mild cognitive impairment or all-cause dementia using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)/systematized nomenclature of medicine (SNOMED) codes. We performed logistic regression analyses to assess the association between CABG and IC, adjusting for clinical factors (age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, depression, stroke, smoking, alcohol use, statin/antihypertensive/antidiabetic use), social determinants (self-reported race/ethnicity, income, employment) and APO (ε) genotypes. We further performed stratified analyses across APO (ε) genotypes (ε2/ε2, ε2/ε3, ε3/ε3, ε2/ε4, ε3/ε4, ε4/ε4). We defined significance at p≤0.05. Results: We included 22 349 with CAD and identified 908 with IC after CAD until 2023. 40% were females, 70% were White, 12% were Black and 9% were Hispanic. The proportion of IC was higher (5.1% vs 3.5%, p=1e-08) in CABG (n=8135) vs non-CABG (n=14 214). After adjusting for clinical factors, social determinants and APO (ε) genotypes, CABG (1.23; 1.06-1.41, p=0.005) was associated with IC. In APO (ε) stratified analysis, the association of CABG with IC was strongest in the APO ε2/ε3 group (1.91; 1.21-3.02, p=0.005). Conclusion: In the AllofUS cohort, we observed an association between CABG and IC in CAD participants, with the strongest association in the APO ε2/ε3 group.
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.