ArticleCurrent vascular pharmacology2026
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Newly Diagnosed and Pre-Existing Diabetes Mellitus Patients after Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Article in Current vascular pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes, including recurrent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and mortality, in ACS patients with varying HbA1c levels, addressing the controversy over optimal targets in those with newly diagnosed and pre-existing diabetes mellitus (DM).
methodsFrom January 2005 to December 2019, a total of 33,990 patients were identified with ACS in the Chang Gung Research Database based on their medical history. After excluding patients without DM and baseline or subsequent HbA1C data, a cohort of 11,870 DM patients was divided into two groups: one consisting of 6,089 patients with newly diagnosed DM and the other comprising 5,781 patients with pre-existing DM.
resultsDuring the three-year follow-up, the pre-existing DM group experienced worse clinical outcomes, such as increased rates of re-ACS, major bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) events, and all-cause mortality. Optimal HbA1c levels for mitigating re-ACS and/or CV mortality and all-cause mortality appeared to differ between the two DM cohorts. Re-ACS and CV mortality reached their highest at an HbA1c of 6.8% for all DM patients, 6.6% for newly diagnosed, and 6.7% for pre-existing cases. The greatest all-cause mortality risk was at an HbA1c of 7.4% for all DM patients, 7.0% in newly diagnosed, and 8.2% in pre-existing patients.
conclusionUpon comparing newly diagnosed DM patients with those with pre-existing DM, a poorer prognosis was observed in the latter group, attributed to older age and a higher burden of comorbidities. Throughout the follow-up period, maintaining consistently low HbA1c levels did not reduce the incidence of re-ACS nor enhance survival rates.
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.