PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 1, 1998Diabetic Medicine22 citations

Managing the diabetic patient with acute myocardial infarction

View Full Paper
JYJohn Yudkin

Structured PICO

Does the use of thrombolytic therapy, aspirin, and insulin/glucose infusion improve mortality in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction?

P
Population
Diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction
I
Intervention
Thrombolytic therapy, aspirin, and insulin/glucose infusion during hospital admission followed by multiple injection therapy
O
Outcome
Mortalityhard clinical

Diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction have doubled in-hospital mortality compared to non-diabetics, but derive substantial absolute benefit from thrombolysis, aspirin, and intensive insulin therapy.

Abstract

The diabetic patient has a substantially increased in-hospital mortality after acute myocardial infarction, which is around twice that of non-diabetic subjects. A number of interventions can substantially improve this outcome. The use of thrombolytic therapy reduces case fatality proportionately to a similar degree to that in non-diabetic patients, but because of the higher background risk, absolute benefits are substantially greater. In the world literature, there is just one reported case of intraocular haemorrhage after thrombolysis in a diabetic patient, and that resolved in 3 weeks, meaning that anxieties around theoretical adverse effects of thrombolysis should not preclude its use. There is no evidence regarding the advantages of any one thrombolytic agent in these subjects. Aspirin treatment again has similar benefits to those in non-diabetic subjects, and should be administered at presentation. Some evidence suggests that a higher dose of aspirin should be used in diabetic, compared to non-diabetic, patients. Finally, the DIGAMI Study has shown that insulin and glucose infusion during the hospital admission, followed by multiple injection therapy thereafter, reduces mortality by around one-third, both at 12 months and at around 3 1/2 years. Whether these advantages are because of improved early or late glycaemic control, or because of withdrawal of sulphonylureas, is still unclear, but this uncertainty should not stand in the way of introducing policies for insulin infusion in all diabetic patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

John Yudkin (1998) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a83f66ba3cef8348e997bf0https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9136(199804)15:4<276::aid-dia586>3.0.co;2-o
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Acute Myocardial Infarction in Diabetic Patients in the Thrombolytic Era1994 · 50 citations
  2. 2How should we manage acute cardiovascular events in diabetes?2004 · 1 citations
  3. 3Mechanisms Determining Course and Outcome of Diabetic Patients Who Have Had Acute Myocardial Infarction1997 · 306 citations
  4. 4Thrombolytic Therapy in Diabetic Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction1996 · 17 citations
  5. 5Does Reperfusion in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction Improve the Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Diabetic Patients?2009 · 3 citations