SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic radial artery harvesting (ERAH) is a minimally invasive alternative to open radial artery harvesting (ORAH) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), though concerns persist regarding graft patency and neurological outcomes.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through February 21, 2026. Randomized controlled trials and propensity-matched observational studies were included. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Pooled risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsERAH significantly reduced wound complications (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.96) and wound infections (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35-0.93), though this benefit did not persist in RCT-only analysis. Neurological complications were reduced after sensitivity analysis (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34-0.57). Graft patency was comparable (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.90-1.14), with no significant differences in mortality, MACCE, or myocardial infarction. Observational data showed modest reductions in cardiopulmonary bypass time and hospital stay.
conclusionsERAH demonstrates comparable graft patency and major clinical outcomes to ORAH. Donor-site benefits suggested by observational studies are not consistently supported by randomized evidence. Large trials with standardized outcomes and long-term follow-up are needed.
trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD420261334767.
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.