CJC open · 2024
Prognostic Impact of Insulin-Treated and Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes in Patients with a Reduced Ejection Fraction After ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Savic Lidija, Mrdovic Igor, Asanin Milika, Stankovic Sanja, Lasica Ratko, Krljanac Gordana, Simic Damjan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Insulin- and non-insulin treated diabetes (ITDM and NITDM) have different prognostic impact in patients with myocardial infarction and/or heart failure. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic impact of ITDM and NTIDM on the incidence of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE- cardiovascular death, nonfatal infarction, nonfatal stroke, and target vessel revascularization) in the 8-year follow-up of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with a reduced ejection fraction (EF).
METHODS: We analyzed 2230 consecutive STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention and with EF < 50%. Echocardiographic examination was performed after primary percutaneous coronary intervention . Patients were divided into 3three groups: those with ITDM, those with NITDM, and those with no DM. Patients presenting with cardiogenic shock were excluded.
RESULTS: The incidence of DM was 20.7%; among the patients with DM, 103 (22.3%) had ITDM. Patients with ITDM and NITDM had a higher incidence of mortality and MACE, compared with patients without DM. Also, at 8-year follow-up, the incidences of all-cause mortality and MACE were significantly higher in patients with ITDM vs patients with NITDM (37.8% vs 13.1%, P < 0.001 and 40.8% vs 18.9%, P < 0.001, respectively). Multivariable analysis showed ITDM to be an independent predictor for long-term mortality (hazard ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.15-2.69), and MACE (hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15-2.62).
CONCLUSIONS: ITDM was an independent predictor of the occurrence of long-term mortality and MACE in patients with STEMI and reduced EF. NITDM was not an independent predictor for the occurrence of adverse events in analyzed patients.
METHODS: We analyzed 2230 consecutive STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention and with EF < 50%. Echocardiographic examination was performed after primary percutaneous coronary intervention . Patients were divided into 3three groups: those with ITDM, those with NITDM, and those with no DM. Patients presenting with cardiogenic shock were excluded.
RESULTS: The incidence of DM was 20.7%; among the patients with DM, 103 (22.3%) had ITDM. Patients with ITDM and NITDM had a higher incidence of mortality and MACE, compared with patients without DM. Also, at 8-year follow-up, the incidences of all-cause mortality and MACE were significantly higher in patients with ITDM vs patients with NITDM (37.8% vs 13.1%, P < 0.001 and 40.8% vs 18.9%, P < 0.001, respectively). Multivariable analysis showed ITDM to be an independent predictor for long-term mortality (hazard ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.15-2.69), and MACE (hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15-2.62).
CONCLUSIONS: ITDM was an independent predictor of the occurrence of long-term mortality and MACE in patients with STEMI and reduced EF. NITDM was not an independent predictor for the occurrence of adverse events in analyzed patients.