4.7 Article

Optimal glycemic control is associated with a lower rate of target vessel revascularization in treated type II diabetic patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.06.019

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives We examined the association between glycemic control determined by preprocedural hemoglobin A1c (A1c) and the incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) in diabetic patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have increased rates of restenosis and a worse clinical outcome after PCI than patients without DM. Methods A total of 239 patients (60 without DM and 179 with DM) were enrolled in this study. Optimal glycemic control was defined as A1cless than or equal to7%, and suboptimal control was defined as A1c>7%. Follow-up was performed at six and 12 months after the index intervention. Results Diabetic patients with optimal glycemic control had a rate of 12-month TVR similar to that of nondiabetic patients (15% vs. 18%, p=NS). Diabetic patients with A1c>7% had a significantly higher rate of TVR than those with A1c<7% (34% vs. 15%, p=0.02). In a multiple logistic regression analysis, A1c>7% was a significant independent predictor of TVR (odds ratio 2.87, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 7.24; p=0.03). Optimal glycemic control was associated with a lower rate of cardiac rehospitalization (15% vs. 31%, p=0.03) and recurrent angina (13% vs. 37%, p=0.002) at 12-month follow-up. Conclusions In diabetic patients undergoing elective PCI, optimal glycemic control (A1cless than or equal to7%) is associated with a lower rate of TVR, cardiac rehospitalization, and recurrent angina. These data suggest that aggressive treatment of DM to achieve A1cless than or equal to7% is beneficial in improving the clinical outcome after PCI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available