Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20221852›Full record

ReviewReviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders2010

Revascularization for coronary artery disease in diabetes mellitus: angioplasty, stents and coronary artery bypass grafting.

Doron Aronson, Elazer R Edelman

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 95% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Diabetes and restenosis.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. The effectiveness and safety of the RESTOREJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2018
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Doron AronsonDepartment of Cardiology, Rambam Medical Center and the Rappaport Research Institute, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. d_aronson@rambam.health.gov.il
Elazer R Edelman
Harvard University · USRambam Health Care Campus · IL

Funding

Vascular Drug Delivery - Supplement for EquipmentR01GM049039 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI EDELMAN, ELAZER R · 1994 to 2019
$8.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM 49039NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM049039
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are prone to a diffuse and rapidly progressive form of atherosclerosis, which increases their likelihood of requiring revascularization. However, the unique pathophysiology of atherosclerosis in patients with DM modifies the response to arterial injury, with profound clinical consequences for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Multiple studies have shown that DM is a strong risk factor for restenosis following successful balloon angioplasty or coronary stenting, with greater need for repeat revascularization and inferior clinical outcomes. Early data suggest that drug eluting stents reduce restenosis rates and the need for repeat revascularization irrespective of the diabetic state and with no significant reduction in hard clinical endpoints such as myocardial infarction and mortality. For many patients with 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease, there is little prognostic benefit from any intervention over optimal medical therapy. PCI with drug-eluting or bare metal stents is appropriate for patients who remain symptomatic with medical therapy. However, selection of the optimal myocardial revascularization strategy for patients with DM and multivessel coronary artery disease is crucial. Randomized trials comparing multivessel PCI with balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) consistently demonstrated the superiority of CABG in patients with treated DM. In the setting of diabetes CABG had greater survival, fewer recurrent infarctions or need for re-intervention. Limited data suggests that CABG is superior to multivessel PCI even when drug-eluting stents are used. Several ongoing randomized trials are evaluating the long-term comparative efficacy of PCI with drug-eluting stents and CABG in patients with DM. Only further study will continue to unravel the mechanisms at play and optimal therapy in the face of the profoundly virulent atherosclerotic potential that accompanies diabetes mellitus.

Indexed as

Angioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCoronary Artery BypassDrug-Eluting StentsCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary RestenosisCoronary ThrombosisDiabetes ComplicationsDiabetes MellitusHumansReoperationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID20221852
PMCPMC3076727
OpenAlexW1585876416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.