ArticleThe Korean journal of internal medicine2021
Long-term effects of the mean hemoglobin A1c levels after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes.
Article in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hemoglobin A1c association patterns with cardiovascular outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review.Diabetes & vascular disease researchPooled it
- Impact of diabetes mellitus type-2 on the outcomes following mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER): A meta-analysis.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Advanced Glycation End Products and Their Effect on Vascular Complications in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Nutrients · 2022Review
- Is Lower Better?: HbA1c Level Is Associated With Venous Graft Patency Following Coronary Bypass Surgery.JACC. Asia · 2022Article
- Optimizing glucose control for diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe clinical benefit of strict blood glucose-lowering therapy for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is still debated. We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients with diabetes who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), according to the mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level after PCI.
methodsWe evaluated 675 diabetes patients with CAD treated with PCI. We categorized the study population into three groups based on the mean observed HbA1c levels during the follow-up duration, as follows: aggressive control (AC) group (HbA1c level < 6.5%, n = 148), moderate control (MC) group (HbA1c level ≥ 6.5% and < 7.0%, n = 138), and uncontrolled (UC) group (HbA1c level ≥ 7.0%, n = 389). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat target vessel revascularization, and stroke.
resultsThe mean HbA1c level of the AC group was significantly lower than that of the MC and UC groups (6.04% ± 0.36% vs. 6.74% ± 0.14% vs. 8.39% ± 1.20%, p < 0.001). The incidence of MACCEs was significantly lower in the AC group than in the MC and UC groups (16.0% vs. 24.3% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.010), mostly driven by the incidence of stroke (4.4% vs. 14.0% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.013). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that only the AC group was associated with a reduced rate of MACCEs (hazard ratio, 0.499; 95% confidence interval, 0.316 to 0.786; p = 0.004) compared with the UC group.
conclusionOur study showed that intensive glycemic control (HbA1c level < 6.5%) is associated with improved clinical outcomes after PCI in patients with diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.