Table 3.

Published Meta‐Analyses of the Observational Evidence on the BITA vs SITA Comparison

First Author, Year	Studies Included in Survival Analysis, n	Patients Included in Survival Analysis, n	Type of Observational Studies Included	Patient Populations Excluded by Inclusion Criteria	HR in Favor of BITA
Taggart, 20015	7	15 962	All	None	0.81 [95% CI 0.70–0.94]
Rizzoli, 20024	7	15 299	All	High‐risk patients, emergencies, diabetics	0.79 [95% CI 0.66–0.91]
Weiss, 20137	27	79 063	All	None	0.78 [95% CI 0.72–0.84]
Takagi, 20146	20	70 897	Adjusted	None	0.80 [95% CI 0.77–0.84]
Yi, 20148	9	15 583	Adjusted	None	0.79 [95% CI 0.75–0.84]
Buttar, 20179	29	89 399	All	None	0.78 [95% CI 0.72–0.84]

BITA indicates bilateral internal thoracic artery; HR, hazard ratio; PSM, propensity‐score matched; UNM, unmatched.