ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization and minimally invasive multivessel CABG for multivessel coronary artery disease.
Article in Frontiers 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the perioperative and early-to-mid-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and minimally invasive multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS-CABG) for treating multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study including MVCAD patients who underwent HCR or MICS-CABG at Ruijin Hospital between January 2019 and December 2024. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major perioperative complications within 30 days after surgery, including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Secondary endpoints included 1-year all-cause survival and 1-year graft or target-vessel patency. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce baseline imbalance between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to evaluate 1-year survival. Results: A total of 169 patients were included, of whom 91 underwent HCR and 78 underwent MICS-CABG. After 1:1 PSM, 132 patients remained, with 66 patients in each group. Major perioperative complications within 30 days after surgery were comparable. In the HCR group, MI occurred in 1 patient (1.52% vs. 0.00%; Conclusions: HCR and MICS-CABG provided comparable perioperative safety, early-to-mid-term survival, and 1-year revascularization patency in selected patients with MVCAD. Treatment strategy may be individualized according to coronary lesion characteristics and cardiopulmonary function.
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.