4.3 Article

Impact of Stress Hyperglycemia on the Timing of Complete Revascularization in Non-diabetes Patients with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

Journal

ANGIOLOGY
Volume 74, Issue 6, Pages 587-595

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00033197221115555

Keywords

stress hyperglycemia; ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; multivessel coronary artery disease; no-reflow; complete revascularization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that stress hyperglycemia (SHG) is associated with an increased risk of adverse events in non-diabetic patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD).
Background: Stress hyperglycemia (SHG) is related to an increased risk of mortality in diabetic patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). However, data are limited in non-diabetic patients especially in patients with multivessel disease (MVD). Methods and Results: In this retrospective study, 742 non-diabetic patients with STEMI and MVD were divided into SHG group and non-SHG group. The overall incidence of SHG was 24.9%. The incidence of no-reflow (NR) phenomenon (18.4% vs 11.8%; P = .024) and in-hospital mortality (1.6% vs .2%; P = .020) in SHG group were significantly higher than those in non-SHG group. SHG was associated with 30-day MACE (hazard ratio, 4.265; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.354-13.439; P = .013), but not 1-year. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that SHG (odds ratio: 1.691, 95% CI: 1.072-2.667, P = .024) was an independent predictor of NR. If complete revascularization (CR) was performed during PPCI, the incidence of NR would be significantly higher. Conclusion: In non-diabetic patients with STEMI and MVD, SHG is associated with increased SF-NR and short-term adverse events, and CR during PPCI further increases the risk of NR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available