Does pre-admission therapy with SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists improve six-month left ventricular reverse remodeling and myocardial work recovery in patients with T2DM recovering from STEMI?
In patients with T2DM presenting with STEMI, pre-admission use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists is associated with improved 6-month left ventricular reverse remodeling and myocardial work recovery.
Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who present with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remain at high risk of adverse remodeling after reperfusion. This observational study examined whether pre-admission glucose-lowering therapy class was associated with six-month left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling and myocardial work recovery. Methods: We analyzed 253 patients with STEMI, baseline LV ejection fraction ≤ 50%, successful primary PCI, and complete baseline and six-month echocardiography. The primary inferential analyses focused on 75 patients with T2DM, grouped according to pre-admission therapy with SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, or conventional therapy; non-diabetic patients were retained as a descriptive reference group. Clinical outcome, propensity-score, subgroup, and mediation analyses were considered exploratory because of small subgroup and event counts. Results: SGLT-2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist exposure was associated with larger improvements in LVEF, LV volumes, and global work efficiency than DPP-4 inhibitors or conventional therapy. Crude MACE rates were highest in the conventional-therapy group, but event estimates were imprecise and confounded by baseline risk, revascularization status, and discharge therapy. Conclusions: In patients with T2DM recovering from STEMI, pre-admission exposure to SGLT-2 inhibitors and, to a lesser extent, GLP-1 receptor agonists was associated with more favorable structural and myocardial work recovery. These hypothesis-generating findings should be interpreted as associations and require confirmation in adequately powered prospective studies.
Buz et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: