ArticleCureus2026
Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (MICS-CABG) Versus Conventional Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (OPCAB): A Single-Center Analysis of Early Outcomes and Institutional Experience.
Article in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS-CABG) through an anterolateral mini-thoracotomy is an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting through median sternotomy. However, evidence regarding its early clinical outcomes and institutional learning phase remains limited in developing healthcare systems. Objectives To compare the baseline clinical characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and early postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing MICS-CABG with those undergoing conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). Methods This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent surgical coronary revascularization at our cardiovascular institute. Patients undergoing non-CABG cardiac procedures or those with incomplete clinical records were excluded. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, cardiovascular comorbidities, operative parameters, duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation, chest tube drainage, and early postoperative complications. Results A total of 80 patients were included, comprising 40 patients who underwent MICS-CABG and 40 who underwent conventional OPCAB. Both groups had a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, including type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The mean duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation was 8.80 ± 3.97 hours in the MICS-CABG group compared with 4.22 ± 2.64 hours in the OPCAB group. Mean postoperative chest tube drainage was 887.0 ± 611.8 mL in the MICS-CABG group and 328.9 ± 116.1 mL in the OPCAB group. No perioperative mortality occurred in either group, and no conversion from MICS-CABG to median sternotomy was observed. Conclusion MICS-CABG was technically feasible in this early institutional experience, with no perioperative mortality or conversion to sternotomy. However, patients undergoing MICS-CABG had longer postoperative mechanical ventilation and greater chest tube drainage than those undergoing conventional OPCAB. These findings support the feasibility of MICS-CABG while highlighting the need for continued evaluation of outcomes as institutional experience increases.
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.