Key result
Sequential bypass grafting was executed more quickly than conventional grafting due to shorter suture times (5 vs. 12 min), with similar 1-year graft patency and mortality.
Why the study?
Does sequential coronary artery bypass grafting reduce the duration of ischemic arrest and cardiopulmonary bypass compared to conventional grafting in patients undergoing uncomplicated CABG?
Population
247 patients undergoing uncomplicated coronary artery bypass graft surgery
Comparison
Sequential coronary artery bypass grafting vs Conventional coronary artery bypass grafting
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 year (for a subset of 109 patients)
Authors
Loading...
Sequential grafting may shorten CABG suture times with similar 1-year outcomes; leaves open effects on ischemic arrest and requires RCTs before practice change.
Cohort (n=247)
Does sequential coronary artery bypass grafting reduce the duration of ischemic arrest and cardiopulmonary bypass compared to conventional grafting in patients undergoing uncomplicated CABG?
Absolute Event Rate: 5% vs 12%
Sequential CABG reduces the duration of ischemic arrest and cardiopulmonary bypass without compromising graft patency or clinical outcomes compared to conventional CABG.
Brower et al. (1981) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring bypass surgery (n=247). Sequential bypass grafting vs. Conventional bypass grafting was evaluated on Suture time for anastomoses (minutes). Sequential bypass grafting was executed more quickly than conventional grafting due to shorter suture times (5 vs. 12 min), with similar 1-year graft patency and mortality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: