ArticleCureus2025
Retrospective Analysis of In-Stent Restenosis in Diabetic Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a major clinical challenge in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the widespread use of drug-eluting stents (DES). Objective This study aims to determine the incidence of ISR and identify associated clinical and procedural risk factors in diabetic patients following PCI with DES. Materials and methods This retrospective study was conducted at Akhtar Saeed Trust Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, from April 2023 to April 2025. A total of 265 diabetic patients who underwent PCI with DES implantation and later presented for follow-up angiographic evaluation were enrolled in the study. Participants were selected through non-probability consecutive sampling. Data were collected using a structured proforma, which included demographic information (age, sex), clinical history (duration of diabetes, smoking status, hypertension, dyslipidemia), laboratory parameters (HbA1c, fasting glucose, lipid profile), and procedural details (number, type, and length of stents used; lesion characteristics; and target vessel). Results ISR was observed in 76 out of 265 patients (28.7%). Patients with ISR had significantly higher HbA1c levels (8.6 ± 1.2% vs. 7.3 ± 1.1%, p < 0.001), longer duration of diabetes (11.1 ± 4.3 vs. 8.4 ± 4.2 years, p < 0.001), and more frequent use of long stents and smaller stent diameters. Multivariate regression identified poor glycemic control (OR 2.83, p < 0.001), diabetes duration > 10 years (OR 2.45, p = 0.005), and stent length >28 mm (OR 1.96, p = 0.015) as independent predictors of ISR. ISR patients were also more symptomatic at follow-up. Conclusions ISR remains a frequent and serious complication in diabetic patients after PCI. Poor glycemic control, longer disease duration, and certain stent characteristics significantly contribute to its development.
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.