Literature DB >> 16739392

An early revascularization strategy is associated with a survival benefit for diabetic patients in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.

Michael E Farkouh1, Krishnan Ramanathan, Eve D Aymong, John G Webb, Shannon M Harkness, Lynn A Sleeper, Judith S Hochman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of diabetes mellitus (DM) in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is not well understood. Previous studies have reported an in-hospital mortality rate for patients with DM and CS of about 60%.
OBJECTIVES: This study compares the 1-year mortality rates of patients with DM and those without (NDM) and evaluates early revascularization (ERV) compared with initial medical stabilization (IMS) in patients with DM and CS.
METHODS: Baseline characteristics, clinical and hemodynamic measures, and management were compared for 90 patients (31%) with DM and 198 with NDM (69%) who were randomized to ERV or IMS in the SHOCK Trial.
RESULTS: When compared with NDM, patients with DM were of similar age but had higher rates of prior MI (44.4 vs. 27.8%, p = 0.007) and hypertension (56.2 vs. 42.5%, p = 0.04). The DM group had a lower rate of fibrinolytic therapy (44.4 vs. 60.1%, p = 0.02). In patients randomized to ERV, patients with DM had a higher rate of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (50.0 vs. 30.9%, p = 0.03) despite similar rates of triple-vessel disease. The 1-year mortality rates in both groups were equivalent (58.9%). One-year mortality was not associated with diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% CI, 0.73-1.42, p = 0.91). The benefit of an ERV strategy was similar (HR [DM] 0.62; HR [NDM] 0.75, p = 0.58). Even after adjusting for the imbalance in CABG rates, 1-year mortality was not associated with DM.
CONCLUSION: Diabetes mellitus is not a predictor of 1-year mortality in CS after AMI. The benefit from an ERV strategy is similar for DM and NDM. The management strategies and influence of DM on mortality in CS deserve further evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16739392      PMCID: PMC6654055          DOI: 10.1002/clc.4960290507

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cardiol        ISSN: 0160-9289            Impact factor:   2.882


  3 in total

Review 1.  Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Ovidiu Chioncel; Sean P Collins; Andrew P Ambrosy; Peter S Pang; Razvan I Radu; Elena-Laura Antohi; Josep Masip; Javed Butler; Vlad Anton Iliescu
Journal:  Am J Ther       Date:  2019 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 2.688

Review 2.  Impact of diabetes on outcomes of cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chao Luo; Feng Chen; Lingpei Liu; Zuanmin Ge; Chengzhen Feng; Yuehua Chen
Journal:  Diab Vasc Dis Res       Date:  2022 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.541

Review 3.  Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Authors:  Adam J Buntaine; Binita Shah; Jeffrey D Lorin; Steven P Sedlis
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.931

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.