Korean circulation journal · 2013
One-Year Clinical Outcomes among Patients with Metabolic Syndrome and Acute Myocardial Infarction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ji Mi Seon, Jeong Myung Ho, Ahn Youngkeun, Kim Young Jo, Chae Shung Chull, Hong Taek Jong, Seong In Whan, Chae Jei Keon, Kim Chong Jin, Cho Myeong Chan, Rha Seung-Woon, Bae Jang Ho, Seung Ki Bae, Park Seung Jung, Other Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. However, the clinical outcome of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with MetS has not been well examined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of AMI patients with MetS.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We evaluated a total of 6352 AMI patients who had successful percutaneous coronary interventions and could be identified for MetS between 2005 and 2008 at 51 hospitals participating in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. They were divided into 2 groups according to the presence of MetS: the MetS group (n=2493, 39.2%) versus the Non-MetS group (n=3859, 60.8%). In addition, 4049 AMI patients with high levels of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) (≥100 mg/dL) among them, were divided into the MetS group (n=1561, 38.6%) versus the Non-MetS group (n=2488, 61.4%).
RESULTS: In the overall population, there was no significant difference in 12-month the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate between the 2 groups. However, the MetS group showed a significantly higher 12-month MACE rate in the high LDL-C population. Multivariate analysis showed that MetS was an independent prognostic factor for 12-month MACE {hazard ratio (HR) 1.607, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.027 to 2.513, adjusted p=0.038} and for 12-month target vessel revascularization (HR 1.564, 95% CI 1.092 to 2.240, adjusted p=0.015) in the high LDL-C population.
CONCLUSION: MetS patients with AMI in the overall population showed no significant difference in 12-month clinical outcomes. However, in patients with higher LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL, they showed significantly worse clinical outcome than Non-MetS patients. Therefore, it is important to ascertain the presence of MetS in AMI patients, and more aggressive therapy should be strongly considered for AMI patient with MetS.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We evaluated a total of 6352 AMI patients who had successful percutaneous coronary interventions and could be identified for MetS between 2005 and 2008 at 51 hospitals participating in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. They were divided into 2 groups according to the presence of MetS: the MetS group (n=2493, 39.2%) versus the Non-MetS group (n=3859, 60.8%). In addition, 4049 AMI patients with high levels of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) (≥100 mg/dL) among them, were divided into the MetS group (n=1561, 38.6%) versus the Non-MetS group (n=2488, 61.4%).
RESULTS: In the overall population, there was no significant difference in 12-month the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate between the 2 groups. However, the MetS group showed a significantly higher 12-month MACE rate in the high LDL-C population. Multivariate analysis showed that MetS was an independent prognostic factor for 12-month MACE {hazard ratio (HR) 1.607, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.027 to 2.513, adjusted p=0.038} and for 12-month target vessel revascularization (HR 1.564, 95% CI 1.092 to 2.240, adjusted p=0.015) in the high LDL-C population.
CONCLUSION: MetS patients with AMI in the overall population showed no significant difference in 12-month clinical outcomes. However, in patients with higher LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL, they showed significantly worse clinical outcome than Non-MetS patients. Therefore, it is important to ascertain the presence of MetS in AMI patients, and more aggressive therapy should be strongly considered for AMI patient with MetS.