ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2022
Revascularization outcomes in diabetic patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome with non-ST elevation.
Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revascularization in Diabetic Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2025Article
- Percutaneous coronary interventionEuropean journal of translational myology · 2025Article
- Mortality After Multivessel Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndromes.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Incremental effect of coronary obstruction on myocardial microvascular dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients evaluated by first-pass perfusion CMR study.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the outcomes of diabetic patients hospitalized with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina (UA) referred for revascularization by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a real-life setting.
methodsThe study included 1987 patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled from the biennial Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey between 2000 and 2016, who were hospitalized for NSTEMI or UA, and underwent either PCI (N = 1652, 83%) or CABG (N = 335, 17%). Propensity score-matching analysis compared all-cause mortality in 200 pairs (1:1) who underwent revascularization by either PCI or CABG.
resultsIndependent predictors for CABG referral included 3-vessel coronary artery disease (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.6-6.8, p < 0.001), absence of on-site cardiac surgery (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, p = 0.013), no previous PCI (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.024) or MI (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p = 0.002). While at 2 years of follow-up, survival analysis revealed no differences in mortality risk between the surgical and percutaneous revascularization groups (log-rank p = 0.996), after 2 years CABG was associated with a significant survival benefit (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07-2.21; p = 0.021). Comparison of the propensity score matching pairs also revealed a consistent long-term advantage toward CABG (log-rank p = 0.031).
conclusionsIn a real-life setting, revascularization by CABG of diabetic patients hospitalized with NSTEMI/UA is associated with better long-term outcomes. Prospective randomized studies are warranted in order to provide more effective recommendations in future guidelines.
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.