In women aged ≤65 years hospitalized for an acute coronary event, diabetes mellitus and having an AMI as the index event are strong predictors of long-term adverse cardiac outcomes.
May aid risk stratification after ACS in younger women; leaves open whether targeted interventions improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the importance of different clinical parameters predicting long-term cardiac prognosis in younger women with an acute coronary event. DESIGN: The Stockholm Female Coronary Risk Study is a follow-up study in women </=65 years. SETTING: Patients were included between 1991 and 1994 from all 10 coronary care or intensive care units in the greater Stockholm area. SUBJECTS: A total of 335 consecutive female patients hospitalized for an acute coronary event. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (AMI). RESULTS: During the follow-up period of 5 years there were 26 (8%) all cause deaths and 39 (12%) recurrent cardiac events. In the group that participated in the complete study, the following age adjusted parameters were found as strong predictors of adverse outcome: AMI as index event [Hazard Ratio (HR) 9.13, 95% CI 3.09-26.99], diabetes mellitus (HR 4.13, 95% CI 1.68-10.17), left ventricular dysfunction (HR 3.94, 95% CI 1.52-10.17), serum HDL cholesterol <1.0 mmol L-1 (HR 4.01, 95% CI 1.62-6.12), and serum triglycerides >2.0 mmol L-1 (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.06-5.54). AMI as index event and diabetes mellitus were the most significant predictors in a multivariate statistical model. Diabetes mellitus was the strongest predictor when the analysis was repeated in the total patient cohort, integrating patients that did not participate in the extended investigations. CONCLUSION: Women aged </=65-year-old hospitalized for an acute coronary event has a low rate of cardiac events during the following 5-year period. Easily obtained clinical variables such as diabetes mellitus predict adverse prognosis and implicates a need for a more active diagnostic and treatment strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al‐Khalili et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: