Last updated September 9, 2026
Key finding
At 10 years, 477 patients died: 291 nondiabetic patients (35.7%), 111 diabetic patients (49.5%) on oral antidiabetic drugs and 75 diabetic patients (70.0%) on insulin therapy.
This study examined long-term outcomes in patients with left main coronary artery disease and diabetes undergoing PCI, revealing significant mortality differences based on diabetes treatment.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Extended (5–20+ y)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study examined long-term outcomes in patients with left main coronary artery disease and diabetes undergoing PCI, revealing significant mortality differences based on diabetes treatment.
These findings highlight the increased risk of mortality and myocardial infarction in diabetic patients undergoing PCI, particularly those on insulin therapy. Understanding these risks can guide clinicians in managing treatment strategies for diabetic patients with coronary artery disease, potentially leading to improved patient outcomes.
The study may have limited generalizability due to its specific population. Potential confounding factors were not fully controlled. The sample size for certain subgroups may have been insufficient.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Jola B, Gjin N, Constantin K, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025;14(24):8851. doi:10.3390/jcm14248851
At 10 years, all-cause mortality was 49.5% for diabetic patients on oral antidiabetic drugs and 70.0% for those on insulin therapy.
Cardiac deaths accounted for 60% of total deaths, with 40.1% in insulin-treated diabetic patients.
The incidence of myocardial infarction was significantly higher in insulin-treated diabetic patients (10.0%) compared to those on oral medications (3.0%).
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and All-cause mortality, Cardiac death, Coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and 4 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
1
Related topics
7
Evidence pairs
54
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.
Primary evidence
Evidence topic
matched_outcome
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → All-cause mortality
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → All-cause mortality
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Cardiac death
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Cardiac death
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Coronary artery bypass graft surgery
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Coronary artery bypass graft surgery
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Definite stent thrombosis
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Definite stent thrombosis
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Incidence of myocardial infarction
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Incidence of myocardial infarction
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Incidence of stroke
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Incidence of stroke
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Repeat PCI
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) → Repeat PCI
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and Cardiovascular Outcomes, Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and Cardiac death.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring Cardiac death
Measures Cardiac death as a key outcome.
All studies measuring Cardiovascular Outcomes
Measures Cardiovascular Outcomes as a key outcome.
All studies on Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
Contributes to Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) evidence base.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) appears to improve cardiac death.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Cardiac death
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for definite stent thrombosis.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Definite stent thrombosis
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear reduction in incidence of myocardial infarction with Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Incidence of myocardial infarction
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
