ArticleYonsei medical journal2011
Comparison of bypass surgery with drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients with left main coronary stenosis.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of diabetes on surgical versus percutaneous left main revascularization outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Long term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetes mellitus with multi vessels diseases: A meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2023Article
- Safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft in patients with STEMI and unprotected left main stem disease: A systematic review & meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Article
- Feasibility study for removing calcified material using a planar rectangular ultrasound transducer.Journal of ultrasound · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSeveral studies have compared the effects of coronary stenting and coronary- artery bypass grafting (CABG) on left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. However, there are limited data on the long-term outcomes of these two interventions in diabetic patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe evaluated 56 patients with LMCA stenosis who underwent drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and 116 patients who underwent CABG in a single hospital in China between January 2004 and December 2006. We compared long-term major adverse cardiac events (death; a "serious outcome" composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and target-vessel revascularization).
resultsIn-hospital (30-day) mortality was 0% for the DES group and 3.4% for the CABG group (p=0.31). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of risk of death [hazard ratio for stenting group, 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.13-1.63; p=0.55] or risk of serious outcome (hazard ratio for DES group, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.39-1.45; p=0.47). The target-vessel revascularization rate was higher in the DES group than in the CABG group (hazard ratio, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.24-11.06; p=0.018).
conclusionIn this cohort of diabetic patients with LMCA stenosis, there was no difference in composite endpoints between patients receiving DESs and those undergoing CABG. However, stenting was associated with higher rates of target-vessel revascularization than CABG. DES implantation in diabetic patients with LMCA disease was found to be at least as safe as CABG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.