ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Total coronary revascularization with anterior thoracotomy: it's not just about sternotomy.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, various forms of minimally invasive approaches have been defined. The research evaluates TCRAT technique against traditional CABG methods through analysis of their effects on surgical results and postoperative clinical performance.
methodsWe report a comparative analysis of 75 TCRAT and 75 conventional CABG cases that we performed using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cardioplegic arrest between February 2021 and August 2022. The patients received clinical and echocardiographic follow-up for an average period of 17.05 ± 4.13 months.
resultsWe compared our first 75 TCRAT cases to the 75 conventional CABG cases we performed during the same time period. Mean CPB duration (113.9 ± 24.3 vs. 95.7 ± 20.1 min, p = 0.001) and mean cross-clamp duration (71.5 ± 18.2 vs. 58.3 ± 14.7 min, p = 0.003) of the TCRAT group were found to be significantly longer than those of the conventional CABG group. Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter in the TCRAT group (5.2 ± 1.8 vs. 6.8 ± 2.3 days, p = 0.003). Throughout the follow-up period, patients in both groups experienced a 47% reduction in the mean New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. The study followed patients for 17.05 ± 4.13 months without detecting any signs of graft blockage through clinical or echocardiographic assessments although angiographic verification was not standard practice. In employed patients, the time to return to work was an average of 16 days in the TCRAT group, while in the conventional CABG group, this duration exceeded 2 months.
conclusionsTCRAT has proven its ability to deliver results similar to traditional CABG in the short term through our first experience with the procedure while providing sternotomy-free benefits that lead to reduced hospitalization duration and quicker recovery of daily activities. The technique requires additional research to determine its cost-effectiveness and identify suitable patient groups through formal economic assessments and extended follow-up studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.