ArticleThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2025
Differential clinical outcomes in ACS: the amplified risk of diabetes in patients treated with drug-coated balloon angioplasty.
Article in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmerging evidence supports drug-coated balloons (DCBs) as a compelling alternative to stent-based interventions in acute coronary syndrome (ACS), particularly in diabetic populations where lesion complexity and metabolic dysfunction often undermine long-term outcomes. This study explores real-world safety and efficacy of DCB-only angioplasty in ACS patients, with focused analysis of diabetic subgroups.
methodsA single-center, retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted at King Abdullah Medical City between 2019 and 2023. The study enrolled patients presenting with ACS who underwent DCB treatment during this period.
resultsOf 212 patients, 55% had diabetes mellitus. Diabetic individuals exhibited significantly higher comorbid burden-hypertension, dyslipidemia, and prior coronary interventions. Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) predominated among diabetics, and in-stent restenosis (ISR) was more frequently observed than de novo lesions. At one-month follow-up, diabetic patients experienced marginally fewer major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) than non-diabetics; however, parity was observed at one year. Within the diabetic group, insulin therapy and suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c > 8.0%) were strongly associated with increased 12-month cardiovascular risk, particularly due to repeat revascularization. Importantly, neither clinical presentation nor angiographic features predicted these risks. Instead, elevated HbA1c and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) independently forecasted adverse outcomes post-DCB.
conclusionIn the context of ACS, diabetic patients remain uniquely vulnerable. Metabolic control and cardiac function-not anatomy alone-emerge as decisive prognostic factors after DCB therapy. Despite inherent challenges, DCB offers a targeted and promising revascularization approach when patient-specific risk modifiers are proactively addressed.
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.