Observational studyPloS one2025
Efficacy and safety of polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent in patients with and without diabetes mellitus: A prospective, multicenter observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention face higher risks of restenosis and adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared to those without DM. This study compared the real-world safety and effectiveness of the Cre8/Cre8 EVO stents in patients with and without diabetes.
methodsWe performed an investigator-initiated, prospective, single-arm observational trial at 28 sites in South Korea. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), and any clinically driven repeat revascularization at 12 months. All-cause mortality was a key secondary endpoint. The adjusted outcomes of DM and non-DM groups were compared using 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching.
resultsA total of 2,043 patients (66.0 ± 11.5 years of age; 76.2% male) were analyzed. Diabetic patients (n = 773; HbA1c 7.3 ± 1.4%) were more likely to be older, female, and have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or chronic kidney disease. Among these, 20.2% (156 patients) were using insulin. There were 54 cases of primary endpoint, 22 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) in the DM group and 32 (3.0%) in the non-DM group (p = 0.61). The DM group exhibited a higher all-cause mortality rate compared to the non-DM group (2.1% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.19). The adjusted risk of 1-year primary endpoint was similar between the DM and non-DM groups (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-2.30), with comparable safety profiles.
conclusionIn this real-world study, the DM group treated with amphilimus-eluting stents demonstrated sufficient safety and effectiveness at 12 months, with a similar occurrence of cardiovascular events compared to the non-DM group.
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.