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?

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 22, 期 13, 页码 1102-1110

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1053/euhj.2000.2445

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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