Total arterial revascularization is associated with long-term survival benefit in coronary artery bypass grafting: systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Importance Total arterial revascularization (TAR), the complete avoidance of saphenous vein grafting (SVG) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), is advocated based on the superior conduit durability and resistance against atherosclerosis. However, the low adoption rate of TAR indicates a high level of controversy. Objective To compare long-term survival between TAR and conventional CABG involving SVG. Data sources A comprehensive literature search was conducted through digital databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the inception to May 2021. Study selection The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials, or propensity-score balanced or multivariable-adjusted observational studies with a sample size of at least 100 patients in each arm, isolated CABG, comparing TAR (SVG=0) vs. non-TAR (SVG≥1), and inclusion of all-cause mortality. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers performed independent extraction following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated with random-effect and fixed-effect models using generic inverse variance weighting. Individual patient time-to-event data were reconstructed to create an overall Kaplan-Meier survival function for matched studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to the risk of bias, matching status, and source of HR. Main outcomes and measures The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results A total of 23 studies (100,314 patients), all with a retrospective observational design, were identified. The weighted mean follow-up time was 8.8 years post-operatively. Total arterial revascularization was associated with greater freedom from all-cause mortality than non-TAR (HR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.84, p<0.001). There was evidence of low heterogeneity (I2=45%) across studies. Low publication bias was observed. Leave-one-out influence analysis and sensitivity analyses produced consistent results. Cochrane Collaboration signaling domains showed no critical risk of bias. Conclusions and relevance This meta-analysis found superior late survival associated with total arterial revascularization. Further randomized clinical trials are needed. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".