Why the study?
The optimal definition and risk stratification approach to identify high-risk patients with prediabetes and stable coronary heart disease has not been well studied.
Does the WHO/IEC definition of prediabetes and AHA/ACC very-high-risk criteria improve risk stratification for MACE in patients with stable coronary heart disease?
Does the WHO/IEC definition of prediabetes and AHA/ACC very-high-risk criteria improve risk stratification for MACE in patients with stable coronary heart disease?
The WHO/IEC definition of prediabetes and the 2018 AHA/ACC very-high-risk criteria effectively stratify the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary heart disease.
May aid MACE risk stratification in stable CHD; extends evidence on prediabetes and VHR criteria but remains hypothesis-generating.
Background The optimal definition and risk stratification approach to identify high‐risk patients with prediabetes and stable coronary heart disease has not been well studied to date. The objective of the current study is to compare the prognostic value of different definitions of prediabetes, and to explore the role of “very‐high‐risk” (VHR) criteria according to the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol guideline in the risk stratification of patients with prediabetes and stable coronary heart disease. Methods and Results This prospective large‐cohort study enrolled a total of 7930 patients with stable coronary heart disease. Prediabetes was defined according to various guidelines and further classified on the basis of the VHR criteria according to the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), which was defined as the composite end point of cardiac death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, and stroke. During a median of 3 years’ follow‐up, a total of 256 MACEs occurred. Prediabetes defined according to the World Health Organization/International Expert Committee criteria was associated with significant increased MACE risk compared with normoglycemia (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.484 [95% CI, 1.139–1.935]; P =0.0035). The VHR group was associated with increased MACE risk compared with the non‐VHR group (adjusted HR, 1.783 [95% CI, 1.344–2.366], P <0.0001). The VHR criteria played an important role in risk stratification, and prediabetes combined with VHR criteria was associated with higher MACE risk regardless of the prediabetes definition. Conclusions Our findings suggested the potential use of the World Health Organization/International Expert Committee definition and VHR criteria in risk stratification of patients with prediabetes and stable coronary heart disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Song et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: