Acute and late clinical outcomes of coronary balloon angioplasty with or without stenting in diabetes--the fact in the "real world".
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the major risk factors of coronary artery disease (CAD). Both short- and long-term prognoses of plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) are poorer in CAD patients with DM than in those without. Recent evidence indicates that coronary stenting significantly improves clinical results of POBA in CAD patients. However, the benefit of coronary stenting remains controversial in DM patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute and late clinical outcomes of coronary stenting as compared with POBA in diabetic patients with CAD in the real setting of our daily practice. METHODS: Between June 1997 and September 1998, more than 400 consecutive CAD patients receiving POBA with or without coronary stenting were evaluated. The patients were those who had definite clinical diagnosis of DM and received coronary intervention for the first time on their de novo, native lesion(s). Patients were divided into 2 groups according to POBA alone or balloon dilatation followed by coronary stenting. The immediate angiographic results and clinical outcomes, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as well as recurrent angina within 24 hours after the procedure (acute) and more than 6 months (late) after the procedure were evaluated in the both groups of patients. RESULTS: A total of 124 DM patients, aged 68 +/- 8 years with 85% male and 60% multivessel disease, were studied. There was no difference in baseline demographic data between those patients receiving POBA alone (POBA, n = 79) and in combination with coronary stenting (stent, n = 45). The minimal luminal diameter of the target lesion immediately after balloon dilatation was smaller in the stent group than in POBA group (1.36 +/- 0.67 vs. 1.96 +/- 1.31 mm, p < 0.001). However, the final luminal gain was much larger (1.60 +/- 0.64 vs. 0.80 +/- 0.88 mm, p < 0.001) and the acute event-free survival rate was higher (97.7% vs. 82.9%, p = 0.019) in stent group than in POBA group. While the percutaneous revascularization rate tended to be less in patients with stent than with POBA (31.8% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.08), the total late MACE rate was similar between both groups (50% vs. 64.7%, p = NS). However, the late event-free survival rates were significantly higher in stenting patients than in those with POBA (34.9% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients with significant CAD were clinically found to be old and largely with multivessel disease for coronary intervention. The immediate angiographic results were better if treated with stenting than with POBA alone. Though the rate of late MACE was similarly high in both groups, coronary stenting rendered a better acute event-free survival rate and especially late event-free survival rate, suggesting its benefit for percutaneous coronary revascularization in 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".