Search

Aims/Introduction: The predictive value of admission hyperglycemia in the long‐term prognosis of acute myocardial infarction patients is still controversial. We aimed to investigate this value based on the diabetes status. Materials and Methods: We carried out a multicenter, retrospective study of 1,288 acute myocardial infarction patients enrolled in 11 hospitals between March 2014 and June 2019 in Chengdu, China. The patients were classified into those with diabetes and those without diabetes, each was further divided into: hyperglycemia and non‐hyperglycemia subgroups, according to the optimal cut‐off value of the blood glucose to predict all‐cause mortality during follow up. The end‐points were all‐cause death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, including all‐cause death, non‐fatal myocardial infarction, vessel revascularization and non‐fatal stroke. Results: In the follow‐up period of 15 months, we observed 210 (16.3%), 6 (0.5%), 57 (4.4%) and 34 (2.6%) cases of death, non‐fatal myocardial infarction, revascularization and non‐fatal stroke, respectively. The optimal cut‐off values of admission blood glucose for patients with diabetes and patients without diabetes to predict all‐cause mortality during follow up were 14.80 and 6.77 mmol/L, respectively. We divided patients with diabetes (n = 331) into hyperglycemia (n = 92) and non‐hyperglycemia (n = 239), and patients without diabetes (n = 897) into hyperglycemia (n = 425) and non‐hyperglycemia (n = 472). The cumulative rates of all‐cause death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events among the patients in each hyperglycemia group was higher than that in the corresponding non‐hyperglycemia group (P < 0.001). In patients without diabetes, admission hyperglycemia was an independent predictor of all‐cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Conclusion: Admission hyperglycemia was an independent predictor for long‐term prognosis in acute myocardial infarction patients without diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The burden of cardiovascular disease is predicted to escalate in developing countries. The aim of this study is to assess the characteristics, management strategies and outcomes of the patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who were admitted to hospitals under the chest pain center mode in southwest P. R. China. Adults hospitalized with a diagnosis of ACS were enrolled in the retrospective, observational registry between January 2017 and June 2019 at 11 hospitals in Chengdu, P. R. China. The collected data included the patients' baseline characteristics, clinical management and in-hospital outcomes. After Statistical analysis, (1) A total of 2857 patients with ACS, among which 1482 have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 681 have non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and 694 have unstable angina (UA) were enrolled in the study. (2) 61.3% of the ACS patients received reperfusion therapy. More patients with STEMI underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with NSTEMI/UA patients (80.6% vs. 38.8%, P < 0.001), while thrombolytics were administered in only 1.8% of STEMI patients. (3) The median time from symptoms to hospital was 190 min (IQR 94-468) in STEMI, 283 min (IQR 112-1084) in NSTEMI and 337 min (IQR 97-2220) in UA (P < 0.001), and the door-to-balloon time for primary PCI (pPCI) was 85 min (IQR 55-121) in STEMI. (4) The in-hospital outcomes for STEMI patients included death (8.1%) and acute heart failure (22.6%), while the outcomes for those with NSTEMI and UA were better: death (4.0% and 0.9%, P < 0.001) and acute heart failure (15.3% and 9.9%, P < 0.001). (5) Antiplatelet drugs, lipid-lowering drugs, β-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) /angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) were used in about 98.3%, 95.0%, 67.7% and 54.3% of the ACS patients, respectively. Therefore, the management capacity in Chengdu has relatively increased compared with previous studies, but important gaps still exist compared with developed countries, especially regarding the management of the NSTEMI/UA patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]