Meta‐Analysis on Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Single Versus Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Grafts in Patients With End‐Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) present unique challenges for coronary revascularization. While coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is recommended over percutaneous coronary intervention in this population, the optimal surgical strategy remains controversial. This meta‐analysis provides an updated comparison of outcomes for ESRD patients undergoing CABG with either bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) or single internal thoracic artery (SITA) grafting. A total of nine studies involving 911 patients were included. Our findings revealed no significant differences in perioperative mortality ( p = 0.57), deep sternal wound infection ( p = 0.41), or major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events ( p = 0.54) between groups. Long‐term survival rates were also comparable at one, three, five, and seven years postoperatively. The pooled hazard ratio for all‐cause mortality was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.61–1.12; p = 0.21), indicating no explicit survival advantage for either grafting strategy. These results are consistent with existing literature and suggest that both BITA and SITA grafting are safe and effective in this high‐risk group. As medical advances continue to extend the life expectancy of patients with ESRD, additional research focused on optimizing the management of ESRD‐related CAD will be essential to improving perioperative and long‐term outcomes for these high‐risk patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".