Which is the worst risk factor for the long‐term clinical outcome? Comparison of long‐term clinical outcomes between antecedent hypertension and diabetes mellitus in South Korean acute myocardial infarction patients after stent implantation

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Hoon Kim ◽  
Ae‐Young Her ◽  
Myung Ho Jeong ◽  
Byeong‐Keuk Kim ◽  
Sung‐Jin Hong ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 616-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renicus S Hermanides ◽  
Mark W Kennedy ◽  
Elvin Kedhi ◽  
Peter R van Dijk ◽  
Jorik R Timmer ◽  
...  

Background: Long-term clinical outcome is less well known in up to presentation persons unknown with diabetes mellitus who present with acute myocardial infarction and elevated glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels on admission. We aimed to study the prognostic impact of deranged HbA1c at presentation on long-term mortality in patients not known with diabetes, presenting with acute myocardial infarction. Methods: A single-centre, large, prospective observational study in patients with and without known diabetes admitted to our hospital for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI. Newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus was defined as HbA1c of 48 mmol/l or greater and pre-diabetes mellitus was defined as HbA1c between 39 and 47 mmol/l. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at short (30 days) and long-term (median 52 months) follow-up. Results: Out of 7900 acute myocardial infarction patients studied, 1314 patients (17%) were known diabetes patients. Of the 6586 patients without known diabetes, 3977 (60%) had no diabetes, 2259 (34%) had pre-diabetes and 350 (5%) had newly diagnosed diabetes based on HbA1c on admission. Both short-term (3.9% vs. 7.4% vs. 6.0%, p<0.001) and long-term mortality (19% vs. 26% vs. 35%, p<0.001) for both pre-diabetes patients as well as newly diagnosed diabetes patients was poor and comparable to known diabetes patients. After multivariate analysis, newly diagnosed diabetes was independently associated with long-term mortality (hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.27–2.34, P=0.001). Conclusions: In the largest study to date, newly diagnosed or pre-diabetes was present in 33% of acute myocardial infarction patients and was associated with poor long-term clinical outcome. Newly diagnosed diabetes (HbA1c ⩾48 mmol/mol) is an independent predictor of long-term mortality. More attention to early detection of diabetic status and initiation of blood glucose-lowering treatment is necessary.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e044072
Author(s):  
Yunmin Shi ◽  
Yujie Wang ◽  
Xuejing Sun ◽  
Yan Tang ◽  
Mengqing Jiang ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThe survival benefit of using mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still controversial. It is necessary to explore the impact on clinical outcomes of MCS in patients with AMI undergoing stenting.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEmbase, Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Clinicaltrialsregister.eu databases were searched from database inception to February 2021.Eligibility criteriaRandomised clinical trials (RCTs) on MCS use in patients with AMI undergoing stent implantation were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated for clinical outcomes according to random-effects model.ResultsTwelve studies of 1497 patients with AMI were included, nine studies including 1382 patients compared MCS with non-MCS, and three studies including 115 patients compared percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) versus intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Compared with non-MCS, MCS was not associated with short-term (within 30 days) (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.41; I2=46.8%) and long-term (at least 6 months) (RR=0.82; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; I2=37.6%) mortality reductions. In the subset of patients without cardiogenic shock (CS) compared with non-MCS, the patients with IABP treatment significantly had decreased long-term mortality (RR=0.49; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; I2=0), but without the short-term mortality reductions (RR=0.51; 95% CI 0.22 to 1.19; I2=17.9%). While in the patients with CS, the patients with MCS did not benefit from the short-term (RR=1.09; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.79; I2=46.6%) or long-term (RR=1.00; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33; I2=22.1%) survival. Moreover, the application of pVADs increased risk of bleeding (RR=1.86; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.00; I2=15.3%) compared with IABP treatment (RR=1.86; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.00; I2=15.3%).ConclusionsIn all patients with AMI undergoing stent implantation, the MCS use does not reduce all-cause mortality. Patients without CS can benefit from MCS regarding long-term survival, while patients with CS seem not.


2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 883-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. L. Koek ◽  
S. S. Soedamah-Muthu ◽  
J. W. P. F. Kardaun ◽  
E. Gevers ◽  
A. de Bruin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document