The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Randomized Comparison of Off-Pump and On-Pump Multivessel Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of the use of coronary-artery bypass surgery without cardiopulmonary bypass and cardiac arrest ("off pump") on graft patency remains uncertain. We undertook a prospective, randomized, controlled study to compare graft-patency rates and clinical outcomes in off-pump surgery with conventional, "on-pump" surgery. METHODS: We randomly assigned 50 patients to undergo on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting and 54 to undergo off-pump surgery. Surgical and anesthetic techniques were standardized for both groups. Clinical outcomes and troponin T levels were measured. Three months later, the patients underwent coronary angiography, including quantitative analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 63 years, and 87 percent were men. The on-pump group received a mean of 3.4 grafts, and the off-pump group 3.1 (P=0.41). There were no deaths. There was no significant difference in the median postoperative length of stay between the two groups (seven days in each group). The area under the curve of troponin T levels was higher during the first 72 hours in the on-pump group than in the off-pump group (30.96 hr x microg per liter vs. 19.33 hr x microg per liter, P=0.02). At three months, 127 of 130 grafts were patent in the on-pump group (98 percent), as compared with 114 of 130 in the off-pump group (88 percent, P=0.002). The patency rate was higher for all graft territories in the on-pump group than in the off-pump group. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized study, off-pump coronary surgery was as safe as on-pump surgery and caused less myocardial damage. However, the graft-patency rate was lower at three months in the off-pump group than in the on-pump group, and this difference has implications with respect to the long-term outcome.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adverse Cerebral Outcomes after Coronary Bypass Surgery
Roach, G. W., Kanchuger, M., Mangano, C. M., Newman, M., Nussmeier, N., Wolman, R., Aggarwal, A., Marschall, K., Graham, S. H., Ley, C., et al. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199612193352501 · Cited by 1,860
Cited by
Sellke, F. W., DiMaio, J. M., Caplan, L. R., Ferguson, T. B., Gardner, T. J., Hiratzka, L. F., Isselbacher, E. M., Lytle, B. W., Mack, M. J., Murkin, J. M., et al. (2005) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.165030 · Cited by 262
Meng, Q. H., Zhu, S., Sohn, N., Mycyk, T., Shaw, S. A., Dalshaug, G., & Krahn, J. (2008) · Journal of Cardiac Surgery · doi:10.1111/j.1540-8191.2008.00701.x · Cited by 32
AKTAS, M. K., KHAN, M. N., DI BIASE, L., ELAYI, C., MARTIN, D., SALIBA, W., CUMMINGS, J., SCHWEIKERT, R., & NATALE, A. (2010) · Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01709.x · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Khan, N. E., De Souza, A., Mister, R., Flather, M., Clague, J., Davies, S., Collins, P., Wang, D., Sigwart, U., & Pepper, J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 350
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-28
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2045928643
- Cited by
- 615
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 58.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.