Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 519

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Off-Pump versus On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting in Elderly Patients

Open access
Diegeler, Anno, Börgermann, Jochen, Kappert, Utz, Breuer, Martin, Böning, Andreas, Ursulescu, Adrian, Rastan, Ardawan, Holzhey, David, Treede, Hendrik, Rieß, Friedrich-Christian, Veeckmann, Philippe, Asfoor, Amjad, Reents, Wilko, Zacher, Michael, Hilker, Michael·2013·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The benefits of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) without cardiopulmonary bypass in the elderly are still undetermined. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients 75 years of age or older who were scheduled for elective first-time CABG to undergo the procedure either without cardiopulmonary bypass (off-pump CABG) or with it (on-pump CABG). The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, or new renal-replacement therapy at 30 days and at 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 2539 patients underwent randomization. At 30 days after surgery, there was no significant difference between patients who underwent off-pump surgery and those who underwent on-pump surgery in terms of the composite outcome (7.8% vs. 8.2%; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.28; P=0.74) or four of the components (death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or new renal-replacement therapy). Repeat revascularization occurred more frequently after off-pump CABG than after on-pump CABG (1.3% vs. 0.4%; odds ratio, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.03 to 5.72; P=0.04). At 12 months, there was no significant between-group difference in the composite end point (13.1% vs. 14.0%; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.16; P=0.48) or in any of the individual components. Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis that excluded the 177 patients who crossed over from the assigned treatment to the other treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients 75 years of age or older, there was no significant difference between on-pump and off-pump CABG with regard to the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, or new renal-replacement therapy within 30 days and within 12 months after surgery. (Funded by Maquet; GOPCABE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00719667.).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1211666

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 519

Metadata

Authors
Diegeler, A., Börgermann, J., Kappert, U., Breuer, M., Böning, A., Ursulescu, A., Rastan, A., Holzhey, D., Treede, H., Rieß, F.-C., Veeckmann, P., Asfoor, A., Reents, W., Zacher, M., & Hilker, M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2013-03-28
Volume
368
Issue
13
Pages
1189-1198
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2160830047
Cited by
519
References
0
FWCI
55.38
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Off-Pump versus On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting in Elderly Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1211666
The paper
Diegeler, A., Börgermann, J., Kappert, U., Breuer, M., Böning, A., Ursulescu, A., Rastan, A., Holzhey, D., Treede, H., Rieß, F.-C., Veeckmann, P., Asfoor, A., Reents, W., Zacher, M., & Hilker, M. (2013). Off-Pump versus On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting in Elderly Patients. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1211666

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.