4.7 Article

Metabolic syndrome and risk of cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.03.062

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES We aimed to assess the prevalence and prognostic role of metabolic syndrome (METS) and diabetes in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients. BACKGROUND Diabetes is a well known risk factor for patients with previous MI, but glycemic dysmetabolism develops over a protracted period of time. Scanty data are available on the role of METS in patients with previous MI. METHODS Adjusted Cox's regression models, having diabetes, death, major cardiovascular events (CVE), and hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF) during follow-up as outcome events, were fitted on 11,323 patients with prior MI enrolled in the GISSI-Prevenzione Trial. RESULTS At baseline, 21% and 29% of patients had diabetes mellitus and METS, respectively. The METS patients had a significant (93%) increased risk of diabetes during follow-up. As compared with control subjects, the probability of death and CVE were higher in both METS (+29%, p = 0.002; +23%, p = 0.005) and diabetic patients (+68%, p < 0.0001; +47%, p > 0.0001), although diabetic but not METS patients were more likely to be hospitalized for CHF (+89%, p < 0.0003 and +24%, p = 0.241). Moderate (-6% to -10%) and substantial (> - 10%) weight reduction were associated with a significant (18% and 41%, respectively) decreased risk of diabetes. Weight gain was significantly associated with increased risk of diabetes. The risk conferred by METS and diabetes tended to be higher among women. CONCLUSIONS In patients with MI, METS and diabetes were highly prevalent and are associated with increased risk of death and CVE. Diabetes is also associated with increased risk of hospitalization for CHF. Weight reduction significantly decreased the risk of becoming diabetic in patients with METS. (c) 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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

4.7
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