Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diabetes and Coronary Revascularization

Flaherty, James D.·2005·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Patients with diabetes mellitus account for approximately 25% of the nearly 1.5 million coronary revascularization procedures performed each year in the United States and experience worse outcomes compared with nondiabetic patients. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current state of evidence comparing the effectiveness and safety of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients and to examine developments that may affect future outcomes in this high-risk group. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using the key terms diabetes mellitus, revascularization, coronary artery bypass, angioplasty, and coronary intervention, we searched MEDLINE from 1985 to 2004 for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CABG surgery and PCI that reported outcomes in diabetic patients. Bibliographies and the Web sites of cardiology conferences were also reviewed. Studies comparing drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents were identified in a similar fashion. The literature was reviewed to identify clinical measures that may impact revascularization outcomes in diabetic patients. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 6 RCTs comparing CABG surgery and PCI in a total of 950 diabetic patients. A mortality benefit for CABG over balloon-only PCI has been demonstrated in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease but has not been clearly established against stent-assisted PCI or in high-risk CABG patients. Use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors has improved survival in diabetic patients undergoing PCI. Restenosis after PCI in diabetic patients has led to substantially higher repeat revascularization rates than after CABG. The use of drug-eluting stents has led to dramatic reductions in restenosis in diabetic patients. Ongoing RCTs comparing CABG and PCI using drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients will clarify the impact of these advances on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a relative lack of data from RCTs specifically comparing CABG surgery and PCI as currently practiced in diabetic patients. The mortality advantage and decreased rates of revascularization seen with CABG in subgroups from early trials may not be applicable in the era of drug-eluting stents, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and the latest medical therapies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.293.12.1501

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Flaherty, J. D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2005-03-23
Volume
293
Issue
12
Pages
1501
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1980786116
Cited by
278
References
68
FWCI
22.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diabetes and Coronary Revascularization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.293.12.1501
The paper
Flaherty, J. D. (2005). Diabetes and Coronary Revascularization. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.12.1501

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.