4.5 Article

Prevalence and impact of a chronic total occlusion in a non-infarct-related artery on long-term mortality in diabetic patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction

期刊

HEART
卷 96, 期 24, 页码 1968-1972

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2010.197673

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recently, a chronic total occlusion (CTO) in a non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA) and not multivessel disease (MVD) alone was identified as an independent predictor of mortality after ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) constitute a patient group with a high prevalence of MVD and high mortality after STEMI. The prevalence of CTO in a non-IRA was studied and its impact on long-term mortality in STEMI patients with DM was investigated. Methods Between 1997 and 2007 4506 patients with STEMI were admitted and treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients with DM were identified. The patients were categorised as having single vessel disease (SVD), MVD without CTO and CTO based on the angiogram before PCI. Results A total of 539 patients (12%) had DM. MVD with or without a CTO was present in 33% of non-diabetic patients and in 51% of diabetic patients. The prevalence of a CTO in a non-IRA was 21% in STEMI patients with DM and 12% in STEMI patients without DM (p<0.01). Kaplan-Meier estimates for 5-year mortality in STEMI patients with DM were 25%, 21% and 47% in patients with SVD, MVD without a CTO and MVD with a CTO in a non-IRA, respectively. A CTO in a non-IRA was an independent predictor of 5-year mortality (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.5, p<0.01). Conclusion The prevalence of a CTO in a non-IRA was increased in STEMI patients with DM. The presence of a CTO in a non-IRA was a strong and independent predictor of 5-year mortality. These results suggest that, particularly in the high-risk subgroup of STEMI patients with DM, MVD has prognostic implications only if a concurrent CTO is present.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据