Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34089266›Full record

SynthesisClinical cardiology2021

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus: Cumulative meta-analysis.

Qiuping Xie, Jianguo Huang, Ke Zhu, Qing Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qiuping XieDepartment of Cardiology, Zhuzhou Central Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4697-8138
Jianguo HuangDepartment of Cardiology, Liling Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Ke ZhuDepartment of Cardiology, Zhuzhou Central Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Qing ChenDepartment of Cardiology, Zhuzhou Central Hospital, Zhuzhou, China.
Zhuzhou Central Hospital · CNShanghai Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous meta-analyses showed that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has lower all-cause mortality than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the management of coronary heart disease (CHD), but the long-term outcomes were not analyzed thoroughly in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the long-term effectiveness between CABG and PCI in patients with T2DM and study the temporal trends using a cumulative meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Clinical Trials Registry for eligible RCTs published up to September 2020. The outcomes were all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke. Nine RCTs and 4566 patients were included. CABG resulted in better outcomes than PCI in terms of all-cause death (RR = 1.41, 95%CI: 1.22-1.63, p < 0.001), cardiac death (RR = 1.56, 95%CI: 1.25-1.95, p < 0.001), and repeat revascularization (RR = 2.68, 95%CI: 1.86-3.85, p < 0.001), but with difference regarding the occurrence of myocardial infarction (RR = 1.20, 95%CI: 0.78-1.85, p = 0.414), while PCI was associated with better outcomes in terms of stroke occurrence (RR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.34-0.77, p = 0.001). The cumulative meta-analysis for all-cause death showed that the differences between CABG and PCI started to be significant at 3 years of follow-up, while the difference became significant at 5 years for cardiac death. In patients with CHD and T2DM, CABG results in better outcomes than PCI in terms of all-cause death, cardiac mortality, and repeat revascularization, while PCI had better outcomes in terms of stroke. The differences are mainly observed over the long-term follow-up.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Percutaneous Coronary InterventionCoronary Artery BypassHumansTreatment Outcomecoronary artery bypass graftcoronary heart diseasemeta-analysismortalitypercutaneous coronary interventiontype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID34089266
PMCPMC8259162
OpenAlexW3165071703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.