OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the reliability and prognostic importance of an in-hospital diagnosis of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Because the factors that comprise MetS are believed to be altered in the setting of AMI, the diagnosis of MetS during AMI hospitalization and its prognostic significance have not been studied. METHODS: We assessed patients within a multicenter registry for metabolic factors at baseline and 1 month post-AMI and followed them for mortality and rehospitalizations. The accuracy of an inpatient diagnosis of MetS was calculated using a 1-month follow-up as the gold standard. Patients were categorized based on MetS diagnosis at baseline and 1 month, and the combined endpoint of death or rehospitalization over 12 months was compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 1,129 patients hospitalized for AMI, diagnostic criteria for MetS were met by 69% during AMI hospitalization and 63% at 1 month. Inpatient MetS diagnosis had a sensitivity and specificity for outpatient diagnosis of 87% and 61%, respectively, and was associated with an 11 times increased odds of an outpatient diagnosis (C-index 0.74). Compared with patients without MetS during hospitalization and follow-up, patients classified as MetS during AMI but not follow-up had worse outcomes, whereas those classified MetS at follow-up had the worst outcomes (rates for combined endpoint 27% vs. 37% vs. 38%; log-rank p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with AMI, the diagnosis of MetS is common and can be made with reasonable accuracy during AMI. MetS is associated with poor outcomes, regardless of whether the diagnosis is confirmed during subsequent outpatient visit, and identifies a high-risk cohort of patients that may benefit from more aggressive risk factor modification.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the reliability and prognostic importance of an in-hospital diagnosis of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Because the factors that comprise MetS are believed to be altered in the setting of AMI, the diagnosis of MetS during AMI hospitalization and its prognostic significance have not been studied. METHODS: We assessed patients within a multicenter registry for metabolic factors at baseline and 1 month post-AMI and followed them for mortality and rehospitalizations. The accuracy of an inpatient diagnosis of MetS was calculated using a 1-month follow-up as the gold standard. Patients were categorized based on MetS diagnosis at baseline and 1 month, and the combined endpoint of death or rehospitalization over 12 months was compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 1,129 patients hospitalized for AMI, diagnostic criteria for MetS were met by 69% during AMI hospitalization and 63% at 1 month. Inpatient MetS diagnosis had a sensitivity and specificity for outpatient diagnosis of 87% and 61%, respectively, and was associated with an 11 times increased odds of an outpatient diagnosis (C-index 0.74). Compared with patients without MetS during hospitalization and follow-up, patients classified as MetS during AMI but not follow-up had worse outcomes, whereas those classified MetS at follow-up had the worst outcomes (rates for combined endpoint 27% vs. 37% vs. 38%; log-rank p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with AMI, the diagnosis of MetS is common and can be made with reasonable accuracy during AMI. MetS is associated with poor outcomes, regardless of whether the diagnosis is confirmed during subsequent outpatient visit, and identifies a high-risk cohort of patients that may benefit from more aggressive risk factor modification.
Authors: Hanna-Maaria Lakka; David E Laaksonen; Timo A Lakka; Leo K Niskanen; Esko Kumpusalo; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Jukka T Salonen Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John L Petersen; Eric Yow; Wael AlJaroudi; Linda K Shaw; Abhinav Goyal; Darren K McGuire; Eric D Peterson; Robert A Harrington Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2010-02-23
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; Paul S Chan; Philip G Jones; Carole Decker; Donna M Buchanan; Harlan M Krumholz; P Michael Ho; John A Spertus Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2011-07
Authors: Jacqueline M Dekker; Cynthia Girman; Thomas Rhodes; Giel Nijpels; Coen D A Stehouwer; Lex M Bouter; Robert J Heine Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-08-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jason M Lappé; Joseph B Muhlestein; Donald L Lappé; Rodney S Badger; Tami L Bair; Ruth Brockman; Thomas K French; Linda C Hofmann; Benjamin D Horne; Susan Kralick-Goldberg; Nan Nicponski; Janette A Orton; Robert R Pearson; Dale G Renlund; Holly Rimmasch; Colleen Roberts; Jeffrey L Anderson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-09-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kim A Eagle; Michael J Lim; Omar H Dabbous; Karen S Pieper; Robert J Goldberg; Frans Van de Werf; Shaun G Goodman; Christopher B Granger; P Gabriel Steg; Joel M Gore; Andrzej Budaj; Alvaro Avezum; Marcus D Flather; Keith A A Fox Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; Kasia J Lipska; Yan Li; Darren K McGuire; Abhinav Goyal; John A Spertus; Mikhail Kosiborod Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Danijela Trifunovic; Sanja Stankovic; Dragana Sobic-Saranovic; Jelena Marinkovic; Marija Petrovic; Dejan Orlic; Branko Beleslin; Marko Banovic; Bosiljka Vujisic-Tesic; Milan Petrovic; Ivana Nedeljkovic; Jelena Stepanovic; Ana Djordjevic-Dikic; Milorad Tesic; Nina Djukanovic; Olga Petrovic; Olga Vasovic; Emilija Nestorovic; Jelena Kostic; Arsen Ristic; Miodrag Ostojic Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2014-04-05 Impact factor: 9.951