Changes in Echocardiographic profile of NSTEMI patients, before and after PCI in Diabetes vs. Non-Diabetes group

Afm Azim Anwar, Sanjida Anjum Mumu, Md Yousuf Ali, Srizon Roy Tirtho, Adib Siddik, M. Chowdhury, Md. Fakhrul Islam Khaled, Smg Saklayen, H. Hoque
{"title":"Changes in Echocardiographic profile of NSTEMI patients, before and after PCI in Diabetes vs. Non-Diabetes group","authors":"Afm Azim Anwar, Sanjida Anjum Mumu, Md Yousuf Ali, Srizon Roy Tirtho, Adib Siddik, M. Chowdhury, Md. Fakhrul Islam Khaled, Smg Saklayen, H. Hoque","doi":"10.3329/uhj.v3i1.73742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Revascularization may improve outcomes of patients with LV dysfunction by improvement of EF. Though this is not so, in diabetic patients. Because diabetic ischemic etiology is consistently reported as a risk factor for lack of ejection fraction (EF) improvement after revascularization. The determinants of EF improvement havenot yet been investigated comprehensively among diabetic vs nondiabetic group. The goal of the study was to examine how diabetic and non-diabetic patients’ left ventricular systolic performance change from the beginning of the trial to three months following PCI. Methodology: This comparative clinical study, conducted at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka, Bangladesh, from January to December 2018 with IRB clearance (Protocol No: BSMMU/2017/ 6624), adhered to Helsinki declaration principles. Patient selection based on inclusion/exclusion criteria involved comprehensive history-taking and clinical examinations. Transthoracic 2D echocardiography was performed pre-PCI, at discharge, and 3 months post-PCI using validated measurements. Left ventricular function parameters were assessed, and coronary angiography preceded percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with newer drug-eluting stents. Standard procedural techniques and anticoagulation were employed, maintaining medication consistency to minimize confounding variables. Results: In our study, diabetic patients significantly improved systolic function, after PCI, to the point where it was nearly comparable to non-diabetes. Most of these measures were poorer in diabetics than in nondiabetics at baseline. However, in this subgroup, our study also demonstrated excellent reversibility of these negative effects following PCI. After PCI, there was also a change in LVEF in non-diabetics. Both people with diabetes and people without diabetes showed improvement in WMA. However, the degree of improvement in these two groups varied. Discussion: This study compared coronary stenosis in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Diabetics exhibited significantly higher LAD stenosis (60% vs. 40%), while RCA and LCx stenoses were similar. Baseline LVEF, LVESV, and LVIDs showed no significant differences between groups. Diabetics had more regional wall motion abnormalities. Three months post-PCI, both groups improved in LV parameters, with no significant inter-group differences. Diabetic patients showed improved LVEF, contrary to a study by Nabati et al. in non-diabetics. Regional wall motion abnormalities decreased more in non-diabetic patients Conclusion: Contrary to the common belief favoring CABG for diabetics, our study indicates that newer drug-eluting stents offer comparable benefits in clinical outcomes, survival rates, and LV systolic function improvements for both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. \nUniversity Heart Journal 2023; 19(2): 45-48","PeriodicalId":23424,"journal":{"name":"University Heart Journal","volume":"107 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3329/uhj.v3i1.73742","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Revascularization may improve outcomes of patients with LV dysfunction by improvement of EF. Though this is not so, in diabetic patients. Because diabetic ischemic etiology is consistently reported as a risk factor for lack of ejection fraction (EF) improvement after revascularization. The determinants of EF improvement havenot yet been investigated comprehensively among diabetic vs nondiabetic group. The goal of the study was to examine how diabetic and non-diabetic patients’ left ventricular systolic performance change from the beginning of the trial to three months following PCI. Methodology: This comparative clinical study, conducted at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka, Bangladesh, from January to December 2018 with IRB clearance (Protocol No: BSMMU/2017/ 6624), adhered to Helsinki declaration principles. Patient selection based on inclusion/exclusion criteria involved comprehensive history-taking and clinical examinations. Transthoracic 2D echocardiography was performed pre-PCI, at discharge, and 3 months post-PCI using validated measurements. Left ventricular function parameters were assessed, and coronary angiography preceded percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with newer drug-eluting stents. Standard procedural techniques and anticoagulation were employed, maintaining medication consistency to minimize confounding variables. Results: In our study, diabetic patients significantly improved systolic function, after PCI, to the point where it was nearly comparable to non-diabetes. Most of these measures were poorer in diabetics than in nondiabetics at baseline. However, in this subgroup, our study also demonstrated excellent reversibility of these negative effects following PCI. After PCI, there was also a change in LVEF in non-diabetics. Both people with diabetes and people without diabetes showed improvement in WMA. However, the degree of improvement in these two groups varied. Discussion: This study compared coronary stenosis in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Diabetics exhibited significantly higher LAD stenosis (60% vs. 40%), while RCA and LCx stenoses were similar. Baseline LVEF, LVESV, and LVIDs showed no significant differences between groups. Diabetics had more regional wall motion abnormalities. Three months post-PCI, both groups improved in LV parameters, with no significant inter-group differences. Diabetic patients showed improved LVEF, contrary to a study by Nabati et al. in non-diabetics. Regional wall motion abnormalities decreased more in non-diabetic patients Conclusion: Contrary to the common belief favoring CABG for diabetics, our study indicates that newer drug-eluting stents offer comparable benefits in clinical outcomes, survival rates, and LV systolic function improvements for both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. University Heart Journal 2023; 19(2): 45-48
糖尿病组和非糖尿病组 NSTEMI 患者 PCI 前后超声心动图特征的变化
背景:血管重建可通过改善 EF 改善左心室功能障碍患者的预后。但糖尿病患者的情况并非如此。据报道,糖尿病缺血性病因一直是血管再通术后射血分数(EF)无法改善的风险因素。目前尚未对糖尿病组和非糖尿病组患者射血分数改善的决定因素进行全面研究。本研究的目的是探讨糖尿病患者和非糖尿病患者的左心室收缩功能从试验开始到PCI术后三个月的变化情况。研究方法:这项比较临床研究于2018年1月至12月在孟加拉国达卡的班加班杜-谢赫-穆吉布医科大学(Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University)进行,获得了IRB批准(协议号:BSMMU/2017/ 6624),遵守赫尔辛基宣言原则。根据纳入/排除标准选择患者,包括全面的病史采集和临床检查。在PCI前、出院时和PCI后3个月,使用经验证的测量方法进行经胸二维超声心动图检查。评估了左心室功能参数,并在使用新型药物洗脱支架进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)前进行了冠状动脉造影。采用标准手术技术和抗凝治疗,保持用药一致性,以尽量减少混杂变量。研究结果在我们的研究中,糖尿病患者在PCI术后收缩功能明显改善,几乎与非糖尿病患者相当。在基线时,糖尿病患者的大多数指标都比非糖尿病患者差。不过,在这一亚组中,我们的研究也证明,PCI 后这些负面影响具有极佳的可逆性。PCI后,非糖尿病患者的LVEF也发生了变化。糖尿病患者和非糖尿病患者的 WMA 均有改善。不过,这两组患者的改善程度各不相同。讨论:本研究比较了糖尿病患者和非糖尿病患者的冠状动脉狭窄情况。糖尿病患者的 LAD 狭窄程度明显更高(60% 对 40%),而 RCA 和 LCx 狭窄程度相似。基线 LVEF、LVESV 和 LVID 在组间无明显差异。糖尿病患者有更多的区域室壁运动异常。PCI术后三个月,两组患者的左心室参数均有所改善,组间无明显差异。糖尿病患者的 LVEF 有所改善,这与 Nabati 等人对非糖尿病患者的研究相反。非糖尿病患者的区域室壁运动异常减少得更多 结论:我们的研究表明,较新的药物洗脱支架在临床疗效、存活率和左心室收缩功能改善方面对糖尿病患者和非糖尿病患者都有类似的益处,这与人们倾向于对糖尿病患者进行 CABG 的普遍看法相反。大学心脏杂志 2023; 19(2):45-48
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信