ArticleCardiology and therapy2026
Concomitant Versus Staged Percutaneous Cervicocerebral Artery Revascularization with Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe optimal strategy and timing for percutaneous cervicocerebral artery revascularization (PCAR) combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain uncertain in patients with severe carotid or vertebral artery stenosis.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed adults undergoing concomitant or staged PCAR-CABG at Beijing Anzhen Hospital from January 2011 to December 2025. The primary endpoint was perioperative death or stroke. Strategies were compared using Firth penalized logistic regression. In the staged cohort, restricted cubic splines and interval-based analyses assessed the association between interprocedural interval and outcomes.
resultsAmong 801 patients, 57 (7.1%) underwent concomitant and 744 (92.9%) underwent staged intervention; the median interprocedural interval was 30 days (interquartile range, 9-46). PCAR was performed for severe vertebral stenosis in 221 (27.6%), severe carotid stenosis in 474 (59.2%), and both in 106 (13.2%). Perioperative death or stroke occurred in one patient (1.8%) in the concomitant group and 37 patients (5.0%) in the staged group. Concomitant intervention was not significantly associated with the primary endpoint after adjustment (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.05-1.76; P = 0.280). Exploratory analyses suggested decreasing risk with longer intervals, although no significant nonlinear association was identified. The 1-7-day staged group had the highest estimated odds relative to the concomitant group (adjusted OR, 4.89; 95% CI, 1.04-48.30; P = 0.044).
conclusionsPerioperative death or stroke did not differ significantly between concomitant and staged PCAR-CABG. However, the limited number of events precludes conclusions regarding equivalence. Interval-specific findings were exploratory and require confirmation in adequately powered 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.