Why the study?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention compared to thrombolytic therapy improve carbohydrate and lipid metabolism indices in patients with postinfarction cardiosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, and obesity?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention compared to thrombolytic therapy improve carbohydrate and lipid metabolism indices in patients with postinfarction cardiosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, and obesity?
Both thrombolytic therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention similarly improve carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in patients with postinfarction cardiosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, and obesity up to 1 year.
Nowadays conservative therapy and reperfusion techniques, which include thrombolytic therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention considered as the main strategies for the acute coronary syndrome treatment.Aim. To assess carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in patients with postinfarction cardiosclerosis, type 2 diabetes and obesity in 6 months and 1 year after myocardial revascularization.Methods and results. 58 patients who underwent thrombolytic therapy and 32 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were examined. Glucose level was determined by glucose oxidation method, insulin – by ELISA and lipid profile – according to the standard biochemical methods.It was established that in patients with postinfarction cardiosclerosis, type 2 diabetes and obesity positive effect was defined in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism by reducing of serum glucose level, insulin, total cholesterol, low and very low-density lipoproteins, triglycerides and increasing of high density lipoproteins, cholesterol in 6 months and 1 year after reperfusion therapy. Significant differences in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in the examined patients, depending on the type of reperfusion therapy, have not been detected in 6 months and 1 year after revascularization.Conclusion. Comparative analysis of different methods of myocardial revascularization did not show any advantages of them.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
П. П. Кравчун (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: