ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2016
Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetes Mellitus in Acute Coronary Syndrome.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- [Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases-1 inhibitor MRL-45696 alleviates DNA damage after myocardial ischemia-reperfusion in diabetic rats].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2018Article
- The Roles of Autophagy in Acute Lung Injury Induced by Myocardial Ischemia Reperfusion in Diabetic Rats.Journal of diabetes research · 2018Article
- Stent fracture is associated with a higher mortality in patients with type-2 diabetes treated by implantation of a second-generation drug-eluting stent.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2017Article
- Prognostic value of hyperglycemia on-admission in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Tunisia.Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have more severe CAD and higher mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) than patients without DM. The optimal mode of revascularization-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-remains controversial in this setting. For patients with DM and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, prompt revascularization of the culprit artery via PCI is generally preferable. In non-ST-elevation ACS, the decision on mode of revascularization is more challenging. Trials comparing CABG with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, bare metal stents, and first-generation drug-eluting stents in DM patients with multivessel have demonstrated decreased mortality in those receiving CABG. On the other hand, trials and retrospective analyses comparing CABG to PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents have not shown a statistically significant mortality benefit favoring CABG. This potentially narrowed that gap between CABG and PCI requires further investigation.
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.