4.7 Article

Glucose-insulin-potassium infusion in patients treated with primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction - The glucose-insulin-potassium study: A Randomized trial

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00830-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES In this study we considered the question of whether adjunction of glucose-insuhn-potassium (GIK) infusion to primary coronary transluminal angioplasty (PTCA) is effective in patients with an acute myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND A combined treatment of early and sustained reperfusion of the infarct-related coronary artery and the metabolic modulation with GIK infusion has been proposed to protect the ischemic myocardium. METHODS From April 1998 to September 2001, 940 patients with an acute MI and eligible for PTCA were randomly assigned, by open-label, to either a continuous GIK infusion for 8 to 12 h or no infusion. RESULTS The 30-day mortality was 23 of 476 patients (4.8%) receiving GIK compared with 27 of 464 patients (5.8%) in the control group (relative risk [RR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 1.46). In 856 patients (91.1%) without signs of heart failure (HF) (Killip class 1), 30-day mortality was 5 of 426 patients (1.2%) in the GIK group versus 18 of 430 patients (4.2%) in the control group (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.75). In 84 patients (8.9%) with signs of HF (Killip class greater than or equal to 2), 30-day mortality was 18 of 50 patients (36%) in the GIK group versus 9 of 34 patients (26.5%) in the control group (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.22). CONCLUSIONS Glucose-insulin-potassium infusion as adjunctive therapy to PTCA in acute MI did not result in a significant mortality reduction in all patients. In the subgroup of 856 patients without signs of HF, a significant reduction was seen. The effect of GIK infusion in patients with signs of HF (Killip class greater than or equal to 2) at admission is uncertain. (C) 2003 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