Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2020
Percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting: a propensity score matching study.
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgeryCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2022Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe target of this study was to explore the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery.
methodsSeven hundred and twenty four patients who had previously received CABG and had been treated using PCI combined with drug-eluting stents (DES) between 2009 and 2017 were selected for a retrospective study and allocated into either a diabetes mellitus (DM) or non-diabetes mellitus (No DM) group. A 1:1 propensity score-matched evaluation was conducted and risk adjusted for analysis. The primary outcomes were cardiac death, myocardial infarction, heart failure and revascularization, with a median follow-up duration of 5.13 years.
resultsAfter matching, two-, 5- and 8-year event rate of overall major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were found to be higher in the DM group (No DM vs DM:15.3, 30.9, 38.5% vs 19.8, 37.8, 52.2%, respectively), although no significant difference was found in the event rate of overall MACEs (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.83 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.052), cardiac death (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.95; P = 0.871), MI (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.32; P = 0.080), HF (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.90 to 2.63 for; P = 0.120) or revascularization (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.59; P = 0.747). Subgroup analysis of PCI in only the NCA showed MACEs (adjusted HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.49 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.325), cardiac death (adjusted HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.78 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.781), MI (adjusted HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.84 to 2.01 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.069), HF (adjusted HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.87 to 2.27 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.211) or repeated revascularization (adjusted HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.37 for DM vs No DM; P = 0.836).
conclusionsCompared with non-diabetic patients with prior CABG, subsequent implantation of DES in the native coronary artery of diabetic patients resulted in apparently similar outcomes.
trial registrationThis study was not registered in an open access database.
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.