4.3 Article

Association of diabetes with increased all-cause mortality following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the contemporary era

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1479164111427752

关键词

Diabetes mellitus; myocardial infarction; primary percutaneous coronary intervention

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation [FS/11/73/29014] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We investigated the association between diabetes mellitus (DM) and all-cause mortality in a large cohort of consecutive patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in the contemporary era. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a single-centre registry of patients undergoing PPCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at a large regional PCI centre between 2005 and 2009. All-cause mortality in relation to patient and procedural characteristics was compared between patients with and without DM. Results: Of 2586 patients undergoing PPCI, 310 (12%) had DM. Patients with DM had a higher prevalence of multi-vessel coronary disease (p<0.001) and prior myocardial infarction (p<0.001). Patients with DM were less commonly admitted directly to the interventional centre (p=0.002). Symptom-to-balloon (p<0.001) and door-to-balloon time (p=0.002) were longer in patients with DM. Final infarct-related-artery TIMI-flow grade was lower in patients with DM (p=0.031). All-cause mortality at 30 days (p=0.0025) and 1 year (p<0.0001) was higher in patients with DM. DM was independently associated with increased mortality after multivariate adjustment for potential confounders. Conclusions: Mortality remains substantially higher in patients with DM following reperfusion for STEMI in comparison with those without diabetes, despite contemporary management with PPCI. Greater co-morbidity, delayed presentation, longer times-to-reperfusion, and less optimal reperfusion may contribute to adverse outcomes.

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

4.3
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