ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2014
Hemoglobin A1c is a better predictor of prognosis following the non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome than fasting and admission glucose.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic value of HbA1c for in-hospital and short-term mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2019Pooled it
- The Level of HbA1c Evaluates the Extent of Coronary Atherosclerosis Lesions and the Prognosis in Diabetes with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Trial
- Auditing CV risk assessment of inpatients with acute high-risk chest pain: room for improvement?The British journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Observational
- Long-term clinical outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome and dysglycaemia.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlucometabolic status is an important predictor of prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Both plasma glucose levels and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were implicated as predictors of prognosis. However, previous data yielded conflicting results. We evaluated the prognostic role of plasma glucose levels and HbA1c in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS).
methodsA total of 106 consecutive patients with NSTEACS (55 with unstable angina and 51 with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction) were included. The average age was 66.1 years; 61% were male. HbA1c was measured at admission, along with other standard laboratory values. The follow-up period lasted for a year. The main combined outcome variable included death from cardiovascular causes and rehospitalization due to another acute coronary syndrome or due to heart failure.
resultsCombined end point occurred in 43 (41%) patients. Mean HbA1c value was significantly higher in the group of patients who had complications (7.6 ± 2.6 vs. 5.8 ± 1.2, p < 0.05). Logistic regression identified HbA1c [odds ratio (OR): 1.6] and male sex (OR: 0.25) as the only independent predictors of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 2.7 times higher risk of MACE in patients with HbA1c > 6.5%.
conclusionsResults from our study indicate that the admission level of HbA1c, but not admission or fasting glucose, is a predictor of mortality and major adverse events in patients with NSTEACS. These results identify HbA1c to be an independent predictor also in patients with NSTEACS, and not only in those with ST elevation myocardial infarction as observed before our study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24297265What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.