Why the study?
Does admission hyperglycemia affect in-hospital mortality differently in men versus women with acute coronary syndrome?
Does admission hyperglycemia affect in-hospital mortality differently in men versus women with acute coronary syndrome?
Admission hyperglycemia is associated with increased in-hospital mortality in men with acute coronary syndrome, but this association is not significant in women after adjusting for risk factors.
Admission hyperglycemia was associated with higher mortality in men but not women with ACS; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Admission hyperglycaemia is associated with mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but controversy exists whether hyperglycaemia uniformly affects both genders. We evaluated coronary risk factors, gender, hyperglycaemia and their effect on hospital mortality. METHODS: 959 ACS patients (363 women and 596 men) were grouped based on glycaemia ≥ or < 200 mg/dL and gender: men with glucose < 200 mg/dL (menG-); women with glucose < 200 mg/dL (womenG-); men with glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL (menG+); and women with glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL (womenG+). A logistic regression analysis compared the relation between gender and glycaemia groups and death, adjusted for coronary risk factors and laboratory data. RESULTS GROUP: menG- had lower mortality than menG + (OR = 0.172, IC95% 0.062-0.478), and womenG + (OR = 0.275, IC95% 0.090-0.841); womenG- mortality was lower than menG + (OR = 0.230, IC95% 0.074-0.717). No difference was found between menG + vs womenG + (p = 0.461), or womenG- vs womenG + (p = 0.110). Age (OR = 1.067, IC95% 1.031-1.104), EF (OR = 0.942, IC95% 0.915-0.968), and serum creatinine (OR = 1.329, IC95% 1.128-1.566) were other independent factors related to in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: Death was greater in hyperglycemic men compared to lower blood glucose men and women groups, but there was no differences between women groups in respect to glycaemia after adjustment for coronary risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takada et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: