Table 2. Summary of major meta-analyses and randomized studies comparing MiECC to cCPB and OPCAB.

Publication	Patients number	Transfusion	Blood loss	Stroke	Myocardial protection	AKI	Arrhythmias	ICU stay, vent. time	Mortality
Meta-analyses comparing MiECC vs. cCPB
Benedetto et al., 2009 (43)	1,051	+
Biancari et al., 2009 (44)	1,161		+	+					±
Zagrillo et al., 2010 (45)	1,619	+		+	+
Harling et al., 2011 (46)	2,355	+	+	±			+
Anastasiadis et al., 2014 (39)	2,770	+	+		+	+	+	+	+
Kowalewski et al., 2016 (41)	12,929			+	±	+	+		+
Studies comparing MiECC vs. OPCAB
Mazzei et al., 2007 (47)	300	±		±	±	±	±	±	±
Formica et al., 2009 (48)	60	±	±				±	±	±
Wittwer et al., 2011 (49)	76	±	±	±	±		±	±	±
van Bover et al., 2013 (50)	60	±			+			+
Wittwer et al., 2013 (51)	120	±	±	±	±	±	±	±
Formica et al., 2013 (52)	61	±	±		±		±	±
Kowalewski et al., 2016 (network meta-analysis) (41)	11,676			+*	+*	+*	+*		+*

As indicated, clinical benefit becomes more evident as the number of included patients is increasing; mortality is the ultimate endpoint that is becoming evident in large-scale analyses. +, denotes benefit for MiECC; +*, denotes benefit after probability analysis for the hierarchy of treatments; ±, denotes benefit for MiECC not reaching statistical significance. AKI, acute kidney injury; ICU, intensive care unit; MiECC, minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation; cCPB, conventional cardiopulmonary bypass; vent., ventilation.