Coronary Revascularization for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the contemporary literature comparing CABG and PCI in diabetic patients providing an up-to-date perspective on the differences between the interventions. Background: Diabetes is common and diabetic patients are at a 2-to-4-fold increased risk of developing coronary artery disease. Approximately 75% of diabetic patients die of cardiovascular disease. Previous literature has identified CABG as superior to PCI for revascularization in diabetic patients with complex coronary artery diseas. Methods: PubMed and Medline were systematically searched for articles published from January 1, 2015 to April 15, 2021. This systematic review included all retrospective, prospective, and randomized trial studies comparing CABG and PCI in diabetic patients. 1552 abstracts were reviewed and 25 studies were included in this review. The data was analyzed using the RevMan 5.4 software. Results: Diabetic patients undergoing CABG experienced significantly reduced rates of 5-year mortality, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, and required repeat revascularization. Patients who underwent PCI experienced improved rates of stroke that trended toward significance. Conclusions: Previous literature regarding coronary revascularization in diabetic patients has consistently demonstrated superior outcomes for patients undergoing CABG over PCI. The development of 1st and 2nd generation DES have narrowed the gap between CABG and PCI, but CABG continues to be superior. Continued investigation with large randomized trials and retrospective studies including long term follow-up comparing CABG and 2nd generation DES is necessary to confirm the optimal intervention for diabetic patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".