Home › Research › Clinical safety
Cognitive outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 91,829 patients
Greaves D, Psaltis PJ, Ross TJ, Davis D, Smith AE, Boord MS, Keage HAD.. International journal of cardiology, 2019-04-24
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Cognitive impairments, including delirium, are common after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, as described in over three decades of research. Our aim was to pool estimates across the literature for the first-time, relative to time (from pre- to post-CABG) and diagnosis (cognitive impairment, delirium and dementia). Methods A systematic search of four databases was undertaken. 215 studies incorporating data from 91,829 patients were used to estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairments pre- and post-CABG, including delirium and dementia post-CABG, using random effects meta-analyses. Results Pre-surgical cognitive impairment was seen in 19% of patients. Post-operatively, cognitive impairment was seen in around 43% of patients acutely; this resolved to 19% at 4-6 months and then increased to 25% of patients between 6-months to 1-year post-operatively. In the long term, between 1 and 5-years post-operatively, cognitive impairment increased and was seen in nearly 40% of patients. Post-operative delirium was apparent in 18% of CABG patients which increased to 24% when a diagnostic instrument was utilized alongside clinical criteria. Dementia was present in 7% of patients 5-7 years post-surgery. Conclusion The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that cognitive impairment and delirium are major issues in CABG patients which require specific attention. It is imperative that appropriate methods for investigating cognitive impairment, and screening for delirium using a diagnostic instrument, occur in both pre-and post-CABG settings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Greaves, D., Psaltis, P. J., Ross, T. J., Davis, D., Smith, A. E., Boord, M. S., et al. (2019). Cognitive outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 91,829 patients. International journal of cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.04.065
Vancouver
Greaves D, Psaltis PJ, Ross TJ, Davis D, Smith AE, Boord MS, et al. Cognitive outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 91,829 patients. International journal of cardiology. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.04.065. PMID: 31078353.
BibTeX
@article{greaves2019-31078353,
author = {Greaves, D. and Psaltis, P. J. and Ross, T. J. and Davis, D. and Smith, A. E. and Boord, M. S. and Keage, H. A. D.},
title = {{Cognitive outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 91,829 patients}},
journal = {International journal of cardiology},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.04.065},
pmid = {31078353},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.04.065}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Pre-surgical cognitive impairment was seen in 19% of patients.
- Conclusion The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that cognitive impairment and delirium are major issues in CABG patients which require specific attention.
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants91,829
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 81/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 81 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of cardiology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 91,829 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31078353) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 47 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 81 out of 100. |
| Total | 81 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also tagged “controlled”
1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.