SynthesisMedicine2017
Comparison of clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients in China: A retrospective study.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Percutaneous coronary intervention in insulin-treated diabetic patients: A meta-analysis.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of diabetes mellitus on carotid artery stenting: a meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2021Pooled it
- Long-term safety and efficacy of the Resolute stent: 5-year results from the RESOLUTE China Registry: RESOLUTE China Registry 5-year outcomes.AsiaIntervention · 2021Article
- Early (≤ 30 Days), Late (31-360 Days) and Very Late (> 360 Days) Stent Thrombosis in Patients with Insulin-Treated versus Non-Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2018Article
- Prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus on patients managed by urgent percutaneous coronary intervention.La Tunisie medicaleArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus (DM) has been proved to be a predictor of adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Drug-eluting stents (DESs) could reduce the adverse events in DM patients. In this study, we aimed to analyze the clinical outcome after DES implantation in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients in China. Totally, 200 Chinese DM patients and 400 Chinese non-DM patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. Compared with non-DM patients, DM patients were more likely to have a higher incidence of cardiac death (3.5% vs. 1.0%, P = .048), stent thrombosis (2.5% vs. 0.5%, P = .044), target lesion revascularization (6.0% vs. 1.8%, P = .005), target vessel failure (15.5% vs. 8.0%, P < .001), target lesion failure (14.0% vs. 4.3%, P < .001), myocardial infarction (4.5% vs. 1.5%, P = .030), and major adverse cardiac events (12.5% vs. 5.0%, P = .001) at 2-year follow-up. However, the incidence of target vessel revascularization (7.5% vs. 5.5%, P = .340) was similar between DB and non-DB patients. Patients with DB (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.54, P = .001), older than 80 years (HR = 1.33, P = .027) with hypercholesterolemia (HR = 1.03, P < .001), serum creatinine >177 μmol/L (HR = 3.04, P = .011), a history of cerebral vascular accident (HR = 4.29, P = .010), or a history of myocardial infarction (HR = 31.4, P < .001) were more likely to experience adverse events. In China, DM could also be served as an independent predictor of adverse outcomes after DES implantation. These patients should be reexamined more frequently.
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.