ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2026
Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Study.
Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) represent a high-risk subgroup for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The primary goal of CABG is durable myocardial revascularization to prevent recurrent ischemic events and improve survival. Minimally invasive CABG (MICS-CABG) may accelerate recovery, but evidence specifically in patients with a history of MI remains limited. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of adults with prior MI who underwent isolated CABG from 2017 to 2024. Patients with new or recurrent MI within 3 months were excluded. Patients underwent either MICS-CABG via left mini-thoracotomy or conventional CABG via median sternotomy. Propensity score matching (PSM; 1:1) was used to balance preoperative covariates. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) during the index hospitalization, reflecting the safety and adequacy of surgical myocardial revascularization. Secondary outcomes included postoperative length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit stay, 24-hour drainage volume, and in-hospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate factors associated with postoperative LOS. Results: The unmatched cohort included 208 patients (sternotomy CABG, n = 142; MICS-CABG, n = 66). After PSM, 106 patients (53 pairs) were included in the analysis. The number of grafts was lower in the MICS-CABG group both before matching (1.71 ± 0.84 vs. 2.08 ± 0.91; Conclusions: In selected patients with prior MI, MICS-CABG demonstrated comparable early safety and a similar incidence of in-hospital MACEs compared with conventional sternotomy CABG after PSM. Although the diseased/transplanted vessel ratio was similar between groups, this finding should be interpreted cautiously because the metric does not fully capture angiographic complexity or graftability. Although the minimally invasive approach was associated with a shorter postoperative LOS in unadjusted analyses, this association was attenuated and not statistically significant after multivariable adjustment.
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.