Renal function estimation formulas in predicting long-term cardiovascular outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction concurrent with diabetes mellitus

• Published in: Terapevtic̆eskii arhiv Vol. 88; no. 4; pp. 35 - 40
• Main Authors: Karetnikova, V N, Osokina, A V, Evseeva, M V, Kalaeva, V V, Gruzdeva, O V, Kashtalap, V V, Zykov, M V, Avramenko, O E, Barbarash, O L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Russian
• Published: Russia (Federation) "Consilium Medicum" Publishing house 01-01-2016
• Subjects: Creatinine; Cystatin C; diabetes mellitus; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - complications; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - physiopathology; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Humans; Models, Theoretical; myocardial infarction; Myocardial Infarction - complications; poor prognosis
• ISSN: 0040-3660; 2309-5342
• DOI: 10.17116/terarkh201688435-40

To comparatively assess formulas for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in the prediction of poor outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) within one year after myocardial infarction (MI).
The investigators examined 89 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) within 24 hours after the onset of clinical symptoms of the disease. All the patients underwent standard laboratory and instrumental tests. GFR was calculated using the Modified of Diet in Renal Diseases (MDRD) formulas in terms of serum creatinine levels, the Hoek equation: GFR [ml/min/1.73 m2] = (80.35/cystatin C [mg/l]) - 4.3 (CKD-EPI), as well as from cystatin C levels, and the creatinine clearance rate was determined using the Cockcroft and Gault formula (ml/min). During a year after STEMI, the investigators recorded cardiovascular events (CVEs), such as death, recurrent MI, progressive angina pectoris, emergency coronary revascularization, and decompensated chronic heart failure (CHF). The examinees were divided into two groups: 1) 70 (78.6%) patients with MI and no DM; 2) 19 (21.3%) patients with MI and DM.
Comparative analysis revealed a tendency towards a difference in the detection rate of GFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 calculated using the Hoek formula from cystatin C levels: 42.1% in Group 2 and 21.4% in Group 1 (р=0.067). There were no great differences in the GFR estimated using other formulas. Logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine the most sensitive formula for estimating GFR to assess the risk of CVEs in the patients within a year after MI concurrent with and without type 2 DM. A univariate analysis showed that GFR calculations using the CKD-EPI (odds ratio (OR), 13.5; p=0.046) and MDRD (OR, 6.5; р=0.040) formulas and creatinine clearance estimation (OR, 2.4; p=0.025) were most sensitive in selecting MI patients without DM and with poor outcomes. This analysis revealed that GFR estimates using the Hoek formula from cystatin C levels (OR, 6.15; p=0.018) were most sensitive for patients with MI concurrent with type 2 DM. In both models, multivariate analysis included none of the analyzed indicators.
To estimate cardiovascular risk in the long-term post-infarction period, the CKD-EPI formula in the patients without type 2 DM and the Hoek formula from cystatin C levels were noted to be of the greatest prognostic value in patients with DM.