ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
Comparing clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention in real world practice in Iranian population.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of Premature Mortality Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: An Iranian Single-Centre Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Intelligent prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE) following percutaneous coronary intervention using ANFIS-PSO model.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is generally regarded as one the treatment options for coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with diabetes. In recent years, with the advent of drug-eluting stents (DES), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was introduced as a suitable alternative for CABG. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) during mid-term period in patients with diabetes treated with 2 revascularization strategies.
methodsThis historical cohort study was conducted on 750 consecutives patients with diabetes in a single cardiovascular center from July 2009 to March 2012 in Iran. We included previously known case of DM treated with antidiabetic medications (with or without end organ damage) and patient with preoperational evaluation FBS test > 126 (not on the day of the surgery) who were revascularized by 2 strategies. We excluded those patients whose follow-up was not possible.
resultsFinally, out of 697 eligible patients, 355 patients underwent a CABG and 342 underwent a PCI: 53 patients were lost to follow-up (27 in CABG and 26 in PCI groups). The mean follow-up time was 900.68 ± 462.03 days in the CABG and 782.60 ± 399.05 in PCI groups. There were 17 (9.13%) cardiac deaths in the CABG group and 8 (4.45%) in the PCI group; this difference was not significant (P = .11). There was 14 (7.58%) cerebrovascular accident in the CABG group and 4 (2.31%) in the PCI group; this difference was significant (P = .04). Moreover, the frequency of the target vessel revascularization in the CABG and PCI groups was 6 (3.32%) and 31 (17.11%) (P < .001), respectively. Myocardial infarction in the CABG group was 5 (2.77%) and 14 (7.86%) in the PCI group (P = .009). Finally, the frequency of MACCE in the CABG and PCI groups was 41(20.70%) and 47(24.16%) respectively; this difference was not statistically significant (P = .195).
conclusionPatients with CABG in this study experienced more CVA, while the frequency of TVR and non-fatal MI was higher in the PCI arm.
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.