4.6 Article

Prediabetes predicts adverse cardiovascular outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis

期刊

BIOSCIENCE REPORTS
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BSR20193130

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Prediabetes has been related with increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the prognostic efficacy of prediabetes for patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains undetermined. We aimed to quantitatively evaluate the influence of diabetes on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) after PCI in a meta-analysis. Methods: Longitudinal follow-up studies evaluating the association between prediabetes and risks of MACEs and mortality after PCI were identified by search of PubMed and Embase databases. A random-effect model was applied to pool the results. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the impacts of study characteristics on the outcome. Results: Twelve follow-up studies including 10,048 patients that underwent PCI were included. Compared with patients with normoglycemia at admission, those with prediabetes were had significantly higher risk MACEs during follow-up (adjusted risk ratio [RR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-1.87, P < 0.001). Further subgroup analyses indicated that the association between prediabetes and higher risk of MACEs remained regardless of the study design, sample size, CAD subtype, PCI type, definition of diabetes, or follow-up duration. Moreover, patients with prediabetes had higher significantly risk of MACEs in studies with adjustment of coronary lesion severity (RR: 1.79, P < 0.001), but the association became insignificant in studies without adjustment of the coronary lesion severity (RR: 1.23, P = 0.09). Conclusions: Prediabetes is independently associated with increased risk of MACEs after PCI as compared with those with normoglycemia, even in studies with adjustment of coronary severity.

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

4.6
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