Cited by 106Coronary Interventions and DiagnosticsAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases

An Invasive or Conservative Strategy in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes

Open access
O'Donoghue, Michelle L., Vaidya, Ajay, Afsal, Rizwan, Alfredsson, Joakim, Boden, William E., Braunwald, Eugene, Cannon, Christopher P., Clayton, Tim C. +9 more·2012·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to examine an invasive or conservative strategy in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients.Background Diabetic patients are at increased risk of cardiovascular events after an acute coronary syndrome, yet it remains unknown whether they derive enhanced benefit from an invasive strategy.Methods Randomized trials comparing an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy were identified. The prevalence of cardiovascular events through 12 months was reported for each trial, stratified by diabetes mellitus status and randomized treatment strategy. Relative risk (RR) ratios and absolute risk reductions were combined using random-effects models.Results Data were combined across 9 trials comprising 9,904 subjects of whom 1,789 (18.1%) had diabetes mellitus. The RRs for death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or rehospitalization with an acute coronary syndrome for an invasive versus conservative strategy were similar between diabetic patients (RR: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 1.03) and nondiabetic patients (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.06; p interaction = 0.83). An invasive strategy reduced nonfatal MI in diabetic patients (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.92), but not in nondiabetic patients (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.29; p interaction = 0.09). The absolute risk reduction in MI with an invasive strategy was greater in diabetic than nondiabetic patients (absolute risk reduction: 3.7% vs. 0.1%; p interaction = 0.02). There were no differences in death or stroke between groups (p interactions 0.68 and 0.20, respectively).Conclusions An early invasive strategy yielded similar RR reductions in overall cardiovascular events in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. However, an invasive strategy appeared to reduce recurrent nonfatal MI to a greater extent in diabetic patients. These data support the updated guidelines that recommend an invasive strategy for patients with diabetes mellitus and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.

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 · 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.059

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Donoghue, M. L., Vaidya, A., Afsal, R., Alfredsson, J., Boden, W. E., Braunwald, E., Cannon, C. P., Clayton, T. C., de Winter, R. J., Fox, K. A. A., Lagerqvist, B., McCullough, P. A., Murphy, S. A., Spacek, R., Swahn, E., Windhausen, F., & Sabatine, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Hamilton Health Sciences (CA)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Albany Stratton VA Medical Center Albany (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • Uppsala University Hospital (SE)
  • Ascension (US)
  • Charles University (CZ)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
106-111
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1953901651
Cited by
106
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 1
FWCI
13.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • The Medicines Company
  • Merck
  • AstraZeneca
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Beckman Coulter
  • Eli Lilly
  • Roche Diagnostics
  • sanofi-aventis
  • Daiichi Sankyo
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Pfizer
  • Abbott
  • Roche
  • Takeda
  • Nanosphere
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb/sanofi-aventis
  • Accumetrics
  • Merck & Co.
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, invasive strategy, conservative strategy, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular events, hospital readmission, mortality, stroke, guideline recommendations
MeSH terms
Diabetic Angiopathies, Hospitalization, Humans, Myocardial Infarction, Recurrence, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, Acute Coronary Syndrome

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