Retrospective cohort study shows SHR predicts mid- to long-term mortality in T2DM, suggesting improved risk assessment.
Background The stress hyperglycemia ratio (SHR) can more accurately reflect acute glycemic dysregulation by incorporating chronic glycemic levels. However, its association with mid- to long-term all-cause mortality in first-hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), as well as its nonlinear characteristics, threshold effect and incremental predictive value, remain unclear. Methods This single-center retrospective cohort study enrolled 1,147 first-hospitalized T2DM patients. The prognostic value of SHR was evaluated using restricted cubic spline analysis, threshold effect analysis, Cox regression, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results SHR was nonlinearly associated with all-cause mortality at all follow-up time points, with an optimal threshold of 1.08 (both P < 0.05). Each 0.1-unit increase in SHR was associated with a 10% higher risk of 3-year and 5-year mortality (HR = 1.10). SHR ≥ 1.08 was associated with increased risks of 3-year and 5-year mortality (HR = 2.38 and 2.28, both P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of results. Subgroup analysis showed that myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and cerebrovascular disease significantly modified the prognostic effect of SHR. Time-dependent ROC demonstrated favorable predictive performance with AUC > 0.80 at all time points. Moreover, SHR resulted in modest improvements in AUC (0.825 → 0.835; 0.813 → 0.823) and C-index (0.792 → 0.802), outperforming traditional glycemic indicators. Conclusion SHR is independently and nonlinearly associated with mid- to long-term all-cause mortality in first-hospitalized T2DM patients (threshold = 1.08), and may provide incremental prognostic information for risk stratification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: