Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Safety of drug-eluting stent in Chinese population with or without diabetes: a multi-center registry study.
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains largely lacking in China. This study aimed to determine the 1-year adverse outcomes in a large registry of patients undergoing PCI with DES for coronary artery disease (CAD) in China. We also examined clinical outcomes in patients with versus without diabetes.
methodsThis study employs a retrospective cohort design. Data were obtained from the Monitoring Reevaluation Platform for Key Medical Device Adverse Events-the multicenter, observational registry that includes patients undergone PCI in Beijing, Guangdong province, and Guizhou province. The primary outcome measure was the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or any clinically indicated revascularisation procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between MACE and diabetes, estimating adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals.
resultsA total of 12,448 patients were included in the final analysis. There were 3,359 (26.98%) patients with DM and 9,089 (73.02%) without DM, respectively. The crude incidence rate of MACE was 0.92% (95% CI: 0.68-1.17%) over 12 months following PCI. Patients with diabetes had a slightly higher rate of MACEs than those without DM, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.01% vs. 0.88%; P = 0.625). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, patients with DM were not at higher risk of MACEs than those without diabetes (OR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.44-6.34; P = 0.452).
conclusionsIn this large, multicenter Chinese registry, DES use was associated with a low and acceptable 1-year MACE rate. Diabetes may not be an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes following DES implantation. However, given the high attrition rate in the observational registry and the potential for underestimation of events, further studies with stricter endpoint ascertainment are warranted, particularly among high-risk subgroups such as elderly patients and those with multiple comorbidities.
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.