4.7 Article

Myocardial infarction and prevalence of diabetes mellitus -: Is increased casual blood glucose at admission a reliable criterion for the diagnosis of diabetes?

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 22, Issue 13, Pages 1102-1110

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1053/euhj.2000.2445

Keywords

diabetes mellitus; acute myocardial infarction; prevalence; casual blood glucose; stress-induced hyperglycaemia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To investigate the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in patients with acute myocardial infarction and to determine whether casual blood glucose and haemoglobin Ale measured at admission could be used to diagnose diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results A prospective study that included all patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized during a one-year period at a coronary care unit. Casual blood glucose was measured at admission, fasting blood glucose during the hospital stay and, if necessary for classification, 2-3 months after discharge. Haemoglobin Ale was measured once at admission. Of 305 patients included in the study, 285 could be classified into three groups: 21% of these had previously diagnosed diabetes, 4% had newly diagnosed diabetes and the remaining patients were categorized as non-diabetic. Casual blood glucose greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol.l(-1) at admission was found in 12 patients with no previously known diabetes, but diabetes mellitus: was confirmed in only six of these patients. Haemoglobin Ale showed considerable overlapping of values between the three groups of patients (i.e. patients with known diabetes mellitus, patients with newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus and non-diabetics). Conclusion One of four patients with acute myocardial infarction had diabetes mellitus. increased casual blood glucose:lt admission was not a reliable measure to establish a diagnosis of diabetes and thus follow-up measures were necessary. Haemoglobin Ale was found to be an unreliable measure in the verification of diabetes.

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