CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 262Cardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Numerous Studies but Few Conclusions: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia in Collaboration With the Interdisciplinary Working Group on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research

Sellke, Frank W., DiMaio, J. Michael, Caplan, Louis R., Ferguson, T. Bruce, Gardner, Timothy J., Hiratzka, Loren F., Isselbacher, Eric M., Lytle, Bruce W., Mack, Michael J., Murkin, John M., Robbins, Robert C.·2005·Circulation
DOI 10.1161/circulationaha.105.165030
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

One of the most hotly debated and polarizing issues in cardiac surgery has been whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass or cardioplegia (off-pump CABG, or OPCAB) is superior to that performed with the heart-lung machine and the heart’s being chemically arrested (standard CABG). Various clinical trials are reviewed comparing the 2 surgical strategies, including several large retrospective analyses, meta-analyses, and the randomized trials that address different aspects of standard CABG and OPCAB. Although definitive conclusions about the relative merits of standard CABG and OPCAB are difficult to reach from these varied randomized and nonrandomized studies, several generalizations may be possible. Patients may achieve an excellent outcome with either type of procedure, and individuals’ outcomes likely depend more on factors other than whether they underwent standard CABG or OPCAB. Nevertheless, there appear to be trends in most studies. These trends include less blood loss and need for transfusion after OPCAB, less myocardial enzyme release after OPCAB up to 24 hours, less early neurocognitive dysfunction after OPCAB, and less renal insufficiency after OPCAB. Fewer grafts tend to be performed with OPCAB than with standard CABG. Length of hospital stay, mortality rate, and long-term neurological function and cardiac outcome appear to be similar in the 2 groups. To definitively answer the remaining questions of whether either strategy is superior and in which patients, a large-scale prospective randomized trial is required.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.105.165030

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The incidence of MOF from patients undergoing CPB is small (<5%) and would necessitate a large patient sample to determine whether ON would predict an increase priming of PMNs and the development of MOF.

    “The incidence of MOF from patients undergoing CPB is small (<5%) [38] and would necessitate a large patient sample to determine whether ON would predict an increase priming of PMNs and the development of MOF.”

    From Oral neutrophils are an independent marker of the systemic inflammatory response after cardiac bypass (2014) · cites this paper as [38]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
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., & Robbins, R. C.
Affiliations
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
ORCID
Venue
Circulation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2005-05-31
Volume
111
Issue
21
Pages
2858-2864
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
DOI
10.1161/circulationaha.105.165030
OpenAlex
W2143537975
Cited by
262
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
32.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Keywords
off-pump coronary artery bypass, cardiopulmonary bypass, cardioplegia, surgical technique comparison, myocardial enzyme release, neurocognitive impairment, renal failure, graft patency, length of hospital stay, mortality, long-term neurological outcome
MeSH terms
American Heart Association, Coronary Artery Bypass, Cardiopulmonary Bypass, Heart Arrest, Induced, Heart-Lung Machine, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Incidence, Treatment Outcome, Coronary Artery Bypass, Off-Pump

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