PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of diaMary Ann Liebert, Inc.Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.JournalsSearchAlerts
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
 
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 June; 14(Suppl 1): S-22–S-32.
PMCID: PMC3388496

How to Best Manage Glycemia and Non-Glycemia During the Time of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Abstract

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is common in patients with diabetes. Reasons for this are multifactorial, but all relate to a variety of maladaptive responses to acute hyperglycemia. Persistent hyperglycemia is associated with worse left ventricular function and higher mortality during AMI, but intervention data are far from clear. Although there is a theoretical basis for the use of glucose-insulin-potassium infusion during AMI, lack of outcome efficacy (and inability to reach glycemic targets) in recent randomized trials has resulted in little enthusiasm for this strategy. Based on the increasing understanding of the dangers of hypoglycemia, while at the same time appreciating the role of hyperglycemia in AMI patients, goal glucose levels of 140–180 mg/dL using an intravenous insulin infusion while not eating seem reasonable for most patients and hospital systems. Non-glycemic therapy for patients with diabetes and AMI has benefited from more conclusive data, as this population has greater morbidity and mortality than those without diabetes. For ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), reperfusion therapy with primary percutaneous coronary intervention or fibrinolysis, antithrombotic therapy to prevent acute stent thrombosis following percutaneous coronary intervention or rethrombosis following thrombolysis, and initiation of β-blocker therapy are the current standard of care. Emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery is reserved for the most critically ill. For those with non-STEMI, initial reperfusion therapy or fibrinolysis is not routinely indicated. Overall, there have been dramatic advances for the treatment of people with AMI and diabetes. The use of continuous glucose monitoring in this population may allow better ability to safely reach glycemic targets, which it is hoped will improve glycemic control.

Introduction

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2004 that 68% of diabetes-related deaths were due to heart disease.1 A report from the Framingham Heart Study noted that the relative risk for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is 50% greater in men with diabetes and 150% greater in women with diabetes.2 Despite some improvements in mortality from AMI during the past few decades, death rates remain higher in patients with diabetes.3

Most endocrinologists and primary care physicians are familiar with advances in coronary artery disease prevention, as reflected in national and international outpatient guidelines for dietary intervention, lipoprotein management, blood pressure control, smoking cessation, appropriate aspirin use, and glucose control. However, what is currently known about the treatment of the AMI patient with diabetes? That topic will be reviewed here as it pertains to glycemia and non-glycemia management.

Glycemic Control

Mechanisms

There is no consensus about the definition of acute hyperglycemia for patients with AMI. In most recent studies, levels of blood glucose from 180 to 198 mg/dL have been used to define acute hyperglycemia. A 2000 meta-analysis of 15 studies showed that inpatients with blood glucose levels >180–198 mg/dL had an increased risk of death with a relative risk of 1.7.4 However, this analysis likely does not represent the modern era of reperfusion and thrombolysis. A more relevant report from the Japanese Acute Coronary Syndrome Study (80% of patients received percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) noted a linear relationship between admission blood glucose level and inpatient mortality for those both with and without diabetes.5

Although it is still controversial whether hyperglycemia is a cause or consequence of cardiac dysfunction (or perhaps both), the experimental evidence is overwhelming that hyperglycemia exacerbates myocardial damage by several mechanisms (Table 1). First, hyperglycemia results in inflammatory activation. It is interesting that pulse hyperglycemia appears to cause more inflammation than stable hyperglycemia.6 Because the antioxidant glutathione blocks this cytokine release, it is thought that the inflammatory activation from hyperglycemia is caused by an oxidative mechanism,6 although there is much evidence acute hyperglycemia itself (and the variability of glucose) results in an oxidative stress that results in both micro- and macrovascular damage,7 in addition to cell apoptosis.8 This complex interrelationship of oxidative stress, inflammatory activation, and hyperglycemia helps explain the toxicity of hyperglycemia during AMI. There is also strong evidence that hyperglycemia results in endothelial dysfunction,9 hypercoagulability,10 and platelet hyperactivity,11 all detrimental in the face of an AMI.

Table 1.
Cardiovascular Effects of Acute Hyperglycemia

Perhaps one of the most discussed mechanisms concerning diabetes and cardiovascular disease is ischemic preconditioning.12 This refers to a phenomenon by which one or more brief episodes of myocardial ischemia increase the ability of the heart to tolerate a subsequent prolonged period of ischemic injury. Although ischemic preconditioning has been shown to occur in both animal models and humans, the protection has been characterized by various end points of cellular injury. It has been speculated that sulfonylureas, in particular the drug tolbutamide, may have blocked ischemic preconditioning in the University Group Diabetes Program,13 providing a potential explanation for the excess mortality in this historic clinical trial.14

Although most of the mechanistic work has addressed the impact of hyperglycemia for cardiovascular disease and AMI, there has been a recent increase in understanding about the role of hypoglycemia for this population. Inflammatory activation clearly occurs from hypoglycemia,15 suggesting that the hypoglycemia documented in other studies with critically ill patients may at least be partly responsible for the negative results reported with the attempt for normoglycemia.16 Hypoglycemia also appears to reduce myocardial blood flow reserve,17 in addition to the well-known effects on QT prolongation and ventricular arrhythmias.18 Taken together, hypoglycemia during AMI may be more deleterious than previously appreciated.

Hyperglycemia management during AMI

With AMI, persistent hyperglycemia is associated with worse left ventricular function and higher mortality.19,20 The evidence for aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia during this AMI period is far from clear.21 All of the antihyperglycemia therapy for AMI is with insulin therapy. Fifty years ago Sodi-Pollares et al.22 raised the concept that a metabolic cocktail consisting of glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) may protect ischemic cardiomyocytes. In the following years Opie23 further refined the rationale for use of this metabolic therapy when he suggested that GIK infusion resulted in a reduction in free fatty acid levels. Furthermore, intracellular potassium is depleted during acute ischemia, raising the possibility that replacing this deficiency with exogenous potassium could raise the threshold for fatal ventricular arrhythmias.

However, GIK never became a standard of care because of inconclusive data. In the “thrombolytic era” a feasibility trial with positive outcomes24 resulted in a larger trial powered with the aim to observe a treatment effect.25 In this latter study of over 20,000 subjects with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), GIK infusion resulted in a neutral effect on mortality, cardiac arrest, or cardiogenic shock. It is important that at baseline, 6 h, and 24 h, plasma glucose levels in the GIK group were 162 mg/dL, 187 mg/dL, and 155 mg/dL, respectively, compared with 162 mg/dL, 148 mg/dL, and 135 mg/dL in the standard therapy group. Although statistical differences for plasma glucose were not reported, baseline highest tertile glucose levels in the standard therapy group were associated with greater mortality at 30 days (6.6% in the lowest tertile, 8.5% in the middle tertile, and 14.0% in the highest tertile).25

The other major pair of randomized trials was the two DIGAMI (Diabetes and Insulin Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction) studies. In the first trial, 620 patients with diabetes or admission glucose above 200 mg/dL were randomized to 24-h glucose-insulin infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin or routine anti-diabetes therapy.26 Relative mortality reduction with the insulin-glucose infusion group was 29% (P=0.027) with the greatest benefit in those with a lower cardiovascular risk profile.

The second study, DIGAMI 2, was larger and more complex.27 Patients with AMI were randomized to one of three groups: (1) acute insulin-glucose infusion followed by insulin-based long-term glucose control; (2) insulin-glucose infusion followed by standard glucose control (i.e., no insulin); or (3) routine metabolic management according to the local practice. The primary end point was all-cause mortality between Groups 1 and 2 according to intention-to-treat analysis, and mortality differences between Groups 2 and 3 and morbidity differences served as secondary and tertiary end points, respectively.

Glycemic results in DIGAMI 2 noted glycosylated hemoglobin was similar among all three groups at 6.8%. Furthermore, the primary treatment target of fasting blood glucose of 90–126 mg/dL for those in Group 1 was never achieved, as fasting glucose levels were similar among groups at approximately 149 mg/dL. Because there were no differences in glucose treatment targets, there were also no differences in the mortality end points. Mortality between Groups 1 (23.4%) and 2 (22.6%) did not significantly differ. Similarly, there were no differences between Groups 2 (22.6%) and 3 (19.3%).27 It is important to note the total study mortality was 18.4% compared with a predicted mortality of 22.2%. Furthermore, compared with a similar population but without diabetes, mortality in the group with diabetes did not differ. It is tempting to attribute this to the reasonable (but not normal) glucose control, but that would be speculative.

One other possibility is that the benefit of GIK infusion would be enhanced by much earlier administration (i.e., in the pre-hospital setting). A very recent, randomized trial has reported on pre-hospital GIK administration by paramedics to patients with high probability of acute coronary syndromes based on symptoms and electrocardiographic findings.28 GIK administration was associated with lower risks for a combined end point of cardiac arrest plus in-hospital mortality, both in the whole acute coronary syndrome cohort (n=871, odds ratio 0.56, P=0.01) and in the subset presenting with STEMI (n=357, odds ratio 0.63, P=0.01).28 In those receiving GIK, circulating free fatty acid levels were suppressed acutely approximately 40%, and median infarct size at 30 days was smaller. Diabetes was present in just under 30% of trial participants; the magnitude of GIK reduction in outcomes appeared to be similar in those with and without diabetes.28 Although intriguing, this study clearly bears replication before pre-hospital GIK administration could become a standard of care.

So how can all of this be translated to the clinician? It seems clear that although there may be some theoretical basis for the classic GIK infusion, from a practical point of view it is too cumbersome to use with quickly changing insulin requirements as the insulin concentration needs to be altered every time a change in insulin infusion rate is needed. Therefore, for the nothing-by-mouth hyperglycemic patient (with or without a prior history of diabetes), using a variable-rate intravenous insulin infusion seems the most reasonable strategy of insulin delivery.

Glycemic targets are more complicated because, other than the trials noted above, there are no intervention studies in the current era of thrombolytic therapy that target AMI. It should also be noted there are no studies using short-term glycemic markers such as fructosamine or 1,5-anhydroglucitol to use as other measures of glycemic targets. The most publicized trial, NICE-SUGAR,16 assessing tight glucose control in 6,104 critically ill patients, did not include patients with AMI. Still, the results are noteworthy in that the intensive therapy group had mean weighted glucose (115±18 mg/dL) significantly lower than the conventional therapy group (144±23 mg/dL) but with more hypoglycemia less than 40 mg/dL (6.8% vs. 0.5%). The primary end point, 90-day mortality, was greater in the intensive therapy group (27.5% vs. 24.9%) (P=0.02). A recent meta-analysis for both medical and surgical critically ill patients noted similar findings.29 Perhaps this is not surprising as we learn about the impact of hypoglycemia on inflammatory activation.30 This concern may even be more relevant for a patient with AMI because of the negative impact of hypoglycemia on ischemia31 and arrhythmia.32

Because high-level evidence for glycemic targets in AMI is not available and hypoglycemia is likely as dangerous if not more so in this population, we believe the current American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)/American Diabetes Association (ADA) targets of 140–180 mg/dL for critically ill patients are reasonable.33 This would include initiating insulin therapy when blood glucose rises above 180 mg/dL. There are no data with the use of a subcutaneous insulin pump or continuous glucose monitoring for use during AMI.

At the University of Washington Medical Center, we started using an inpatient intravenous insulin infusion protocol in 1992. There have been several major revisions to our protocols over the years. Our current intravenous insulin algorithms are presented in Figures 13. It is important to note we use our protocol when appropriate for the patient not eating in both the intensive care unit and non–intensive care unit setting. Our most recent version is noted in Figures 13. Note the lower end of our targets is below the AACE/ADA recommendations because of our longstanding experience of safety using intravenous insulin in our institution.34

FIG. 1.FIG. 1.
General instructions for University of Washington intravenous insulin infusion protocol. BG, blood glucose; D5½NS, dextrose 5% in 0.45% NaCl; D10W, dextrose 10% in water; DM, diabetes mellitus; HMC, Harborview Medical Center; ICU, intensive care ...
FIG. 3.
Column-based insulin infusion protocols. For individuals who require higher doses, a higher infusion rate can be administered. BG, blood glucose.
FIG. 2.
Insulin infusion algorithm decision tree used to guide insulin infusion rates at the University of Washington Medical Center. BG, blood glucose; TPN, total parenteral nutrition.

Non-Glycemia Management

Atherosclerotic plaque morphology and myocardial infarction risk in diabetes

Disruption of the structural integrity of a preexisting atherosclerotic plaque is thought to be the primary initiator of AMI. The most common mechanisms include fibrous cap rupture or ulceration, which exposes the blood to thrombogenic plaque contents, such as macrophages and lipid. This stimulates formation of a thrombus in the lumen of the coronary artery that may propagate to occlude blood flow, resulting in downstream myocardial ischemia and myocardial infarction (MI). Based on this paradigm, the risk for MI would be increased by three sets of factors, all of which are increased in those with diabetes. These include the following: (1) Increases are found in those with diabetes in plaque macrophages and lipid,35,36 both of which promote plaque instability.37 Plaque lipids not only undermine plaque structural integrity38 but also promote influx of macrophages, which secrete enzymes39,40 that degrade plaque structural proteins, including collagen. (2) A generalized increase is observed in arterial stiffness, clinically manifest as an increase in pulse pressure, which results in increased transmission of hemodynamic forces to plaque fibrous caps. In experimental models, diabetes has been associated with both increased arterial collagen41,42 and decreased arterial elastin.43 (3) A prothrombotic milieu occurs, which in those with diabetes includes increases in plaque content of the prothrombotic molecule and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1,44 as well as greater plasma hypercoagulability,10 including platelet dysfunction11 and increased levels of fibrinogen.45

Risks for MI complications in those with diabetes

Diabetes is associated with dramatic increases in risk for death from MI, both during the index hospitalization and following hospital discharge. Early in the thrombolytic era, the GUSTO-I trial found a near doubling in the 30-day post-MI mortality rate in those with diabetes.46 More recently, a U.S. registry involving >80,000 MI cases found diabetes to be associated with a 33% increase in in-hospital mortality.47 Diabetes also is associated with increases in longer-term risks for death following MI. Post hoc analyses of the SAVE48 and VALIANT49 trials both found a diabetes-associated 50% in risk of death at 3.5–5 years following post-MI hospital discharge. The pathophysiology of this dramatic, diabetes-associated increased risk of death is likely multifactorial and involves increased risks for recurrent coronary occlusion,46 congestive heart failure (CHF) and cardiogenic shock,50 and arrhythmias.

CHF and cardiogenic shock

Diabetes is a well-recognized risk factor for CHF, with a twofold increase in risk for prevalent CHF,2 CHF hospitalization,51 and idiopathic cardiomyopathy.52 Echocardiography has shown associations of diabetes with increased left ventricular mass and impaired cardiac relaxation (i.e., diastolic dysfunction), both of which not only precede the development of impaired cardiac contractile function (i.e., systolic dysfunction) but also are independent of hypertension and increased body mass index.53 Baseline diastolic dysfunction may be present in up to 50–60% of those with diabetes.53,54 It is interesting that a higher prevalence of diastolic dysfunction has been correlated with both poorer glycemic control and more severe albuminuria.55 Diabetes is associated with increased myocardial fibrosis56 and with metabolic disturbances, including increased oxidative stress and altered energy substrate utilization,57 all of which likely contribute to impaired cardiac relaxation.

Against this background of diabetes-associated abnormalities in cardiac relaxation, it is not surprising that the acute superimposition of an acute decrease in contractility of the infarcted segment of myocardium is more likely to precipitate clinical CHF or even cardiogenic shock. The degree of contractile dysfunction during MI is further exacerbated by the lack of compensatory hyperkinesis in non-infarcted segments.46 Thus, an 80,000-participant PCI registry documented that diabetes is associated with a much higher risk for cardiogenic shock at presentation.50

Arrhythmias

Whether diabetes is associated with increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias has been somewhat controversial, as studies have suggested a decreased risk for ventricular arrhythmias with coronary occlusion in rats,58 as well as post-primary PCI for AMI in humans.59 However, one recent study found that an admission glucose level of >180 mg/dL was associated with a 50% increase in “high-risk” ventricular arrhythmias.60 Moreover, those with diabetes have several risk factors for arrhythmias, which include myocardial fibrosis and electrolyte disturbances, such as hyperkalemia and hypomagnesemia from type IV renal tubular acidosis. However, the greatest theoretical and practical risk for ventricular arrhythmias for those with diabetes and MI may be that of severe hypoglycemia,18 which has multiple pro-arrhythmic effects, including adrenergic activation, induction of coronary ischemia,31 and increases in the QT interval61 and QT dispersion.32 Thus, avoidance of hypoglycemia, targeting glucose levels to a range of 140–180 mg/dL,33 may be a key factor in avoiding arrhythmias during AMI in those with diabetes.

General Approach to MI Care in Those with Diabetes

AMI therapies

STEMI

Acute treatment of STEMI is outlined in the 2004 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines62 as well as in a 2009 focused update63 and includes the following: (1) ischemic pain relief with supplemental oxygen and intravenous morphine, as necessary; (2) assessment of the hemodynamic state and correction of abnormalities, including hypertension, tachycardia, pulmonary congestion, and/or hypoperfusion and shock; (3) prompt reperfusion therapy with primary PCI or fibrinolysis; (4) antithrombotic therapy to prevent acute stent thrombosis following PCI or rethrombosis following thrombolysis; and (5) initiation of β-blocker therapy to prevent ventricular arrhythmias and recurrent ischemia.

Unstable angina/non-STEMI

Acute management of those presenting with unstable angina or non-STEMI differs primarily in that, as opposed to STEMI management, initial reperfusion therapy with PCI or fibrinolysis is not routinely indicated. Instead, stratification of risk for complications should be performed to help guide whether an individual patient should be managed conservatively with medical therapy or with an early invasive strategy with angiography and either PCI or referral for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, as guided by coronary anatomy.64

Specific considerations for non-glycemic MI therapies in diabetes

Relief of ischemic pain

Therapies for management of ischemic pain are similar in those with and without diabetes and include supplemental oxygen, especially in those with arterial O2 saturation <90%, as well as intravenous morphine, as necessary to control pain.

Assessment of hemodynamic state

This requires particular attention to signs and symptoms of congestion, including dyspnea, rales, and increased jugular venous pressure, as well as signs of hypoperfusion beyond low blood pressure, such as cold, clammy extremities, diminished peripheral pulses, and decreased mentation. Because of the increased risks for CHF and cardiogenic shock in those with diabetes, attention to these potential signs and symptoms should be heightened.

Reperfusion

Based on evidence demonstrating a >40% reduction in risk for death, non-fatal re-infarction, or stroke for “primary” PCI (i.e., PCI as first reperfusion therapy) versus intravenous fibrinolytic therapy,65 primary PCI is the preferred initial reperfusion strategy in most patients presenting with AMI. Guidelines have established a goal of opening the infarct artery within 90 min of first contact with medical personnel at a facility with PCI capability.63 Facilities without on-site PCI should have protocols for rapid transfer to PCI centers for primary PCI.63 Emergency CABG surgery is reserved for those failing reperfusion with PCI or fibrinolytics, cardiogenic shock or life-threatening arrhythmias, and severe, multivessel, or left main disease.62 In addition to the higher rates of cardiogenic shock in those with diabetes,50 data from GUSTO-IB suggest these patients have a higher rate of failed reperfusion.46 Patients with diabetes are more likely to present with multivessel coronary artery disease and therefore more likely to be candidates for extensive revascularization with CABG surgery; however, it may be preferable to defer surgery for several days in those without emergency indications in order to minimize risk of reperfusion injury. CABG surgery is generally preferred over PCI in those with diabetes requiring multivessel revascularization,66 likely because more complete revascularization is associated with better clinical outcomes.67

Antiplatelet therapy

Antiplatelet therapy with full-dose aspirin (325 mg/day) and a thienopyridine (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) is essential to prevent re-occlusion of the infarct-related artery following reperfusion with PCI or fibrinolytics. Moreover, older data demonstrate similar relative efficacy of long-term aspirin in those with and without diabetes.68 Although those with diabetes have increased rates of re-occlusion,46 there is no evidence supporting use of aspirin doses above 325 mg/day, and some theoretical concern exists that higher doses could promote vasoconstriction by inhibiting prostacyclin production. There is some debate about the relative clinical efficacy of clopidogrel versus prasugrel or ticagrelor, but an analysis across multiple comparative trials concluded that the latter two agents are clearly associated with increased risks for bleeding and are substantially more expensive than clopidogrel.69

β-Blockers

Oral β-blocker therapy, preferably with a β-1-selective agent, is an essential component of non-glycemic therapy in those with MI. As in those without diabetes, contraindications to β-blocker use include heart failure, low output state, or high risk for cardiogenic shock, bradycardia, and heart block.62 Older data suggest that the relative risk reduction associated with in-hospital β-blocker therapy may be even greater in those with diabetes compared with those without diabetes (37% vs. 13%).70 A relative risk reduction of 40% with post-MI β-blocker therapy in diabetes was confirmed in a large Medicare database.71 In addition, it appears that many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may be safely treated with β-blockers post-MI and also achieve significant reduction in mortality.71 One important consideration with β-blocker therapy is that the predominant hypoglycemic symptoms are shifted from sympathetic (e.g., tremulousness) to parasympathetic (e.g., diaphoresis), though with no adverse change in the level of hypoglycemic awareness.72

Conclusions

Although there have been dramatic improvements in the understanding of the basic pathophysiology of AMI in patients with diabetes, evidence for improved outcomes has been significantly greater in the area of non-glycemic management. In general, non-glycemic therapies considered standard of care for treatment of AMI in those without diabetes appear to have similar, and in some cases greater, relative benefits to those seen in those without diabetes. On the other hand, we lack appropriate evidence from intervention trials to identify ideal glycemic targets. Because of both epidemiologic data and newer data on the general dangers of hypoglycemia, we believe that the current general glycemic targets for inpatient hyperglycemia management are appropriate for patients with AMI. It is hoped that newer technology (specifically continuous glucose monitoring) will provide improved safety to allow clinical trials to assess the impact of normoglycemia for this population.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms. Elisa Washington for her editorial assistance.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diabetes Public Health Resource. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/estimates07.htm. [Mar 11;2012 ]. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/estimates07.htm
2. Kannel WB. McGee DL. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease. The Framingham Study. JAMA. 1979;241:2035–2038. [PubMed]
3. Ouhoummane N. Abdous B. Louchini R. Rochette L. Poirier P. Trends in postacute myocardial infarction management and mortality in patients with diabetes. A population-based study from 1995 to 2001. Can J Cardiol. 2010;26:523–531. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Capes SE. Hunt D. Malmberg K. Gerstein HC. Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: a systematic overview. Lancet. 2000;355:773–778. [PubMed]
5. Ishihara M. Kojima S. Sakamoto T. Asada Y. Tei C. Kimura K. Miyazaki S. Sonoda M. Tsuchihashi K. Yamagishi M. Ikeda Y. Shirai M. Hiraoka H. Inoue T. Saito F. Ogawa H. Japanese Acute Coronary Syndrome Study Investigators. Acute hyperglycemia is associated with adverse outcome after acute myocardial infarction in the coronary intervention era. Am Heart J. 2005;150:814–820. [PubMed]
6. Esposito K. Nappo F. Marfella R. Giugliano G. Giugliano F. Ciotola M. Quagliaro L. Ceriello A. Giugliano D. Inflammatory cytokine concentrations are acutely increased by hyperglycemia in humans: role of oxidative stress. Circulation. 2002;106:2067–2072. [PubMed]
7. Giacco F. Brownlee M. Oxidative stress and diabetic complications. Circ Res. 2010;107:1058–1070. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Risso A. Mercuri F. Quagliaro L. Damante G. Ceriello A. Intermittent high glucose enhances apoptosis in human umbilical vein endothelial cells in culture. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001;281:E924–E930. [PubMed]
9. Calles-Escandon J. Cipolla M. Diabetes and endothelial dysfunction: a clinical perspective. Endocr Rev. 2001;22:36–52. [PubMed]
10. Carr ME. Diabetes mellitus: a hypercoagulable state. J Diabetes Complications. 2001;15:44–54. [PubMed]
11. Vinik AI. Erbas T. Park TS. Nolan R. Pittenger GL. Platelet dysfunction in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1476–1485. [PubMed]
12. Eisen A. Fisman EZ. Rubenfire M. Freimark D. McKechnie R. Tenenbaum A. Motro M. Adler Y. Ischemic preconditioning: nearly two decades of research. A comprehensive review. Atherosclerosis. 2004;172:201–210. [PubMed]
13. Meinert CL. Knatterud GL. Prout TE. Klimt CR. A study of the effects of hypoglycemic agents on vascular complications in patients with adult-onset diabetes. II. Mortality results. Diabetes. 1970;19(Suppl):789–830. [PubMed]
14. Meier JJ. Gallwitz B. Schmidt WE. Mügge A. Nauck MA. Is impairment of ischaemic preconditioning by sulfonylurea drugs clinically important? Heart. 2004;90:9–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Razavi Nematollahi L. Kitabchi AE. Stentz FB. Wan JY. Larijani BA. Tehrani MM. Gozashti MH. Omidfar K. Taheri E. Proinflammatory cytokines in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemic stress in healthy subjects. Metabolism. 2009;58:443–448. [PubMed]
16. NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators. Finfer S. Chittock DR. Su SY. Blair D. Foster D. Dhingra V. Bellomo R. Cook D. Dodek P. Henderson WR. Hébert PC. Heritier S. Heyland DK. McArthur C. McDonald E. Mitchell I. Myburgh JA. Norton R. Potter J. Robinson BG. Ronco JJ. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1283–1297. [PubMed]
17. Rana O. Byrne CD. Kerr D. Coppini DV. Zouwail S. Senior R. Begley J. Walker JJ. Greaves K. Acute hypoglycemia decreases myocardial blood flow reserve in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and in healthy humans. Circulation. 2011;124:1548–1556. [PubMed]
18. Nordin C. The case for hypoglycaemia as a proarrhythmic event: basic and clinical evidence. Diabetologia. 2010;53:1552–1561. [PubMed]
19. Kosuge M. Kimura K. Ishikawa T. Shimizi T. Hibi K. Toda N. Tahara Y. Kanna M. Tsukahara K. Okuda J. Nozawa N. Umemura S. Persistent hyperglycemia is associated with left ventricular dysfunction in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circ J. 2005;69:23–28. [PubMed]
20. Goyal A. Mahaffey KW. Garg J. Nicolau JC. Hochman JS. Weaver WD. Theroux P. Oliveira GB. Todaro TG. Mojcik CF. Armstrong PW. Granger CB. Prognostic significance of the change in glucose level in the first 24 h after acute myocardial infarction: results from the CARDINAL study. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:1289–1297. [PubMed]
21. Pittas AG. Siegel RD. Lau J. Insulin therapy for critically ill hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2005–2011. [PubMed]
22. Sodi-Pallares D. Testelli MR. Fishleder BL. Bisteni A. Medrano GA. Friedland C. de Micheli A. Effects of an intravenous infusion of a potassium-glucose-insulin solution on the electrocardiographic signs of myocardial infarction. A preliminary clinical report. Am J Cardiol. 1962;9:166–181. [PubMed]
23. Opie LH. Myocardial infarct size. Part 2. Comparison of anti-infarct effects of beta-blockade, glucose-insulin-potassium, nitrates, and hyaluronidase. Am Heart J. 1980;100:531–552. [PubMed]
24. Díaz R. Paolasso EA. Piegas LS. Tajer CD. Moreno MG. Corvalán R. Isea JE. Romero G. Metabolic modulation of acute myocardial infarction. The ECLA (Estudios Cardiológicos Latinoamérica) Collaborative Group. Circulation. 1998;98:2227–2234. [PubMed]
25. Mehta SR. Yusuf S. Díaz R. Zhu J. Pais P. Xavier D. Paolasso E. Ahmed R. Xie C. Kazmi K. Tai J. Orlandini A. Pogue J. Liu L. CREATE-ECLA Trial Group Investigators. Effect of glucose-insulin-potassium infusion on mortality in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the CREATE-ECLA randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;293:437–446. [PubMed]
26. Malmberg K. Rydén L. Efendic S. Herlitz J. Nicol P. Waldenström A. Wedel H. Welin L. Randomized trial of insulin-glucose infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin treatment in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI study): effects on mortality at 1 year. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:57–65. [PubMed]
27. Malmberg K. Rydén L. Wedel H. Birkeland K. Bootsma A. Dickstein K. Efendic S. Fisher M. Hamsten A. Herlitz J. Hildebrandt P. MacLeod K. Laakso M. Torp-Pedersen C. Waldenström A. DIGAMI 2 Investigators. Intense metabolic control by means of insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI 2): effects on mortality and morbidity. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:650–661. [PubMed]
28. Selker HP. Beshansky JR. Sheehan PR. Massaro JM. Griffith JL. D'Agostino RB. Ruthazer R. Atkins JM. Sayah AJ. Levy MK. Richards ME. Aufderheide TP. Braude DA. Pirrallo RG. Doyle DD. Frascone RJ. Kosiak DJ. Leaming JM. Van Gelder CM. Walter GP. Wayne MA. Woolard RH. Opie LH. Rackley CE. Apstein CS. Udelson JE. Out-of-hospital administration of intravenous glucose-insulin-potassium in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes: the IMMEDIATE randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012 Mar 27; doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.426. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
29. Marik PE. Preiser JC. Toward understanding tight glycemic control in the ICU: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Chest. 2010;137:544–551. [PubMed]
30. Wright RJ. Newby DE. Stirling D. Ludlam CA. Macdonald IA. Frier BM. Effects of acute insulin-induced hypoglycemia on indices of inflammation: putative mechanism for aggravating vascular disease in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:1591–1597. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Desouza C. Salazar H. Cheong B. Murgo J. Fonseca V. Association of hypoglycemia and cardiac ischemia: a study based on continuous monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:1485–1489. [PubMed]
32. Landstedt-Hallin L. Englund A. Adamson U. Lins PE. Increased QT dispersion during hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Intern Med. 1999;246:299–307. [PubMed]
33. Moghissi ES. Korytkowski MT. DiNardo M. Einhorn D. Hellman R. Hirsch IB. Inzucchi SE. Ismail-Beigi F. Kirkman MS. Umpierrez GE. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; American Diabetes Association. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association consensus statement on inpatient glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:1119–1131. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Ku SY. Sayre CA. Hirsch IB. Kelly JL. New insulin infusion protocol improves blood glucose control in hospitalized patients without increasing hypoglycemia. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31:141–147. [PubMed]
35. Moreno PR. Murcia AM. Palacios IF. Leon MN. Bernardi VH. Fuster V. Fallon JT. Coronary composition and macrophage infiltration in atherectomy specimens from patients with diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2000;102:2180–2184. [PubMed]
36. Burke AP. Kolodgie FD. Zieske A. Fowler DR. Weber DK. Varghese PJ. Farb A. Virmani R. Morphologic findings of coronary atherosclerotic plaques in diabetics: a postmortem study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004;24:1266–1271. [PubMed]
37. Davies MJ. Richardson PD. Woolf N. Katz DR. Mann J. Risk of thrombosis in human atherosclerotic plaques: role of extracellular lipid, macrophage, and smooth muscle cell content. Br Heart J. 1993;69:377–381. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
38. Richardson PD. Davies MJ. Born GV. Influence of plaque configuration and stress distribution on fissuring of coronary atherosclerotic plaques. Lancet. 1989;2:941–944. [PubMed]
39. Nikkari ST. O'Brien KD. Ferguson M. Hatsukami T. Welgus HG. Alpers CE. Clowes AW. Interstitial collagenase (MMP-1) expression in human carotid atherosclerosis. Circulation. 1995;92:1393–1398. [PubMed]
40. Galis ZS. Sukhova GK. Kranzhöfer R. Clark S. Libby P. Macrophage foam cells from experimental atheroma constitutively produce matrix-degrading proteinases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92:402–406. [PubMed]
41. Mizushige K. Noma T. Yao L. Yu Y. Kiyomoto H. Hosomi N. Fukui T. Kimura S. Abe Y. Matsuo H. Effects of troglitazone on collagen accumulation and distensibility of aortic wall in prestage of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus of Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty rats. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2000;35:150–155. [PubMed]
42. Candido R. Allen TJ. Lassila M. Cao Z. Thallas V. Cooper ME. Jandeleit-Dahm KA. Irbesartan but not amlodipine suppresses diabetes-associated atherosclerosis. Circulation. 2004;109:1536–1542. [PubMed]
43. McDonald TO. Gerrity RG. Jen C. Chen HJ. Wark K. Wight TN. Chait A. O'Brien KD. Diabetes and arterial extracellular matrix changes in a porcine model of atherosclerosis. J Histochem Cytochem. 2007;55:1149–1157. [PubMed]
44. Sobel BE. Woodcock-Mitchell J. Schneider DJ. Holt RE. Marutsuka K. Gold H. Increased plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 in coronary artery atherectomy specimens from type 2 diabetic compared with nondiabetic patients: a potential factor predisposing to thrombosis and its persistence. Circulation. 1998;97:2213–2221. [PubMed]
45. Stehouwer CD. Gall MA. Twisk JW. Knudsen E. Emeis JJ. Parving HH. Increased urinary albumin excretion, endothelial dysfunction, and chronic low-grade inflammation in type 2 diabetes: progressive, interrelated, and independently associated with risk of death. Diabetes. 2002;51:1157–1165. [PubMed]
46. Woodfield SL. Lundergan CF. Reiner JS. Greenhouse SW. Thompson MA. Rohrbeck SC. Deychak Y. Simoons ML. Califf RM. Topol EJ. Ross AM. Angiographic findings and outcome in diabetic patients treated with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: the GUSTO-I experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:1661–1669. [PubMed]
47. Chin CT. Chen AY. Wang TY. Alexander KP. Mathews R. Rumsfeld JS. Cannon CP. Fonarow GC. Peterson ED. Roe MT. Risk adjustment for in-hospital mortality of contemporary patients with acute myocardial infarction: the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network (ACTION) Registry–Get with the Guidelines (GWTG) acute myocardial infarction mortality model and risk score. Am Heart J. 2011;161:113–122. [PubMed]
48. Murcia AM. Hennekens CH. Lamas GA. Jiménez-Navarro M. Rouleau JL. Flaker GC. Goldman S. Skali H. Braunwald E. Pfeffer MA. Impact of diabetes on mortality in patients with myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2273–2279. [PubMed]
49. Aguilar D. Solomon SD. Køber L. Rouleau JL. Skali H. McMurray JJ. Francis GS. Henis M. O'Connor CM. Diaz R. Belenkov YN. Varshavsky S. Leimberger JD. Velazquez EJ. Califf RM. Pfeffer MA. Newly diagnosed and previously known diabetes mellitus and 1-year outcomes of acute myocardial infarction: the VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial. Circulation. 2004;110:1572–1578. [PubMed]
50. Bauer T. Möllmann H. Weidinger F. Zeymer U. Seabra-Gomes R. Eberli F. Serruys P. Vahanian A. Silber S. Wijns W. Hochadel M. Nef HM. Hamm CW. Marco J. Gitt AK. Impact of diabetes mellitus status on coronary pathoanatomy and interventional treatment: insights from the Euro Heart Survey PCI registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78:702–709. [PubMed]
51. Held C. Gerstein HC. Yusuf S. Zhao F. Hilbrich L. Anderson C. Sleight P. Teo K. ONTARGET/TRANSCEND Investigators. Glucose levels predict hospitalization for congestive heart failure in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Circulation. 2007;115:1371–1375. [PubMed]
52. Bertoni AG. Tsai A. Kasper EK. Brancati FL. Diabetes and idiopathic cardiomyopathy: a nationwide case-control study. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:2791–2795. [PubMed]
53. Poirier P. Bogaty P. Garneau C. Marois L. Dumesnil JG. Diastolic dysfunction in normotensive men with well-controlled type 2 diabetes: importance of maneuvers in echocardiographic screening for preclinical diabetic cardiomyopathy. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:5–10. [PubMed]
54. Redfield MM. Jacobsen SJ. Burnett JC., Jr Mahoney DW. Bailey KR. Rodeheffer RJ. Burden of systolic and diastolic ventricular dysfunction in the community: appreciating the scope of the heart failure epidemic. JAMA. 2003;289:194–202. [PubMed]
55. Liu JE. Robbins DC. Palmieri V. Bella JN. Roman MJ. Fabsitz R. Howard BV. Welty TK. Lee ET. Devereux RB. Association of albuminuria with systolic and diastolic left ventricular dysfunction in type 2 diabetes: the Strong Heart Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:2022–2028. [PubMed]
56. Factor SM. Minase T. Sonnenblick EH. Clinical and morphological features of human hypertensive-diabetic cardiomyopathy. Am Heart J. 1980;99:446–458. [PubMed]
57. Boudina S. Abel ED. Diabetic cardiomyopathy revisited. Circulation. 2007;115:3213–3223. [PubMed]
58. Ravingerova T. Neckar J. Kolar F. Stetka R. Volkovova K. Ziegelhöffer A. Styk J. Ventricular arrhythmias following coronary artery occlusion in rats: is the diabetic heart less or more sensitive to ischaemia? Basic Res Cardiol. 2001;96:160–168. [PubMed]
59. Mehta RH. Yu J. Piccini JP. Tcheng JE. Farkouh ME. Reiffel J. Fahy M. Mehran R. Stone GW. Prognostic significance of postprocedural sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (from the HORIZONS-AMI Trial) Am J Cardiol. 2012;109:805–812. [PubMed]
60. Sanjuan R. Blasco ML. Martinez-Maicas H. Carbonell N. Miñana G. Nuñez J. Bodí V. Sanchis J. Acute myocardial infarction: high risk ventricular tachyarrhythmias and admission glucose level in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2011;7:126–134. [PubMed]
61. Gill GV. Woodward A. Casson IF. Weston PJ. Cardiac arrhythmia and nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes—the 'dead in bed' syndrome revisited. Diabetologia. 2009;52:42–45. [PubMed]
62. Antman EM. Anbe DT. Armstrong PW. Bates ER. Green LA. Hand M. Hochman JS. Krumholz HM. Kushner FG. Lamas GA. Mullany CJ. Ornato JP. Pearle DL. Sloan MA. Smith SC., Jr Alpert JS. Anderson JL. Faxon DP. Fuster V. Gibbons RJ. Gregoratos G. Halperin JL. Hiratzka LF. Hunt SA. Jacobs AK. American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Canadian Cardiovascular Society. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) Circulation. 2004;110:e82–e292. Erratum in Circulation 2005;111:2013–2014, Circulation 2007;115:e411, Circulation 2010;121:e441. [PubMed]
63. Kushner FG. Hand M. Smith SC., Jr King SB., 3rd Anderson JL. Antman EM. Bailey SR. Bates ER. Blankenship JC. Casey DE., Jr Green LA. Hochman JS. Jacobs AK. Krumholz HM. Morrison DA. Ornato JP. Pearle DL. Peterson ED. Sloan MA. Whitlow PL. Williams DO. American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: 2009 Focused Updates: ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (updating the 2004 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI Guidelines on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (updating the 2005 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2009;120:2271–2306. Erratum in Circulation 2010;121:e257. Dosage error in article text. [PubMed]
64. Anderson JL. Adams CD. Antman EM. Bridges CR. Califf RM. Casey DE., Jr Chavey WE., 2nd Fesmire FM. Hochman JS. Levin TN. Lincoff AM. Peterson ED. Theroux P. Wenger NK. Wright RS. Smith SC., Jr Jacobs AK. Halperin JL. Hunt SA. Krumholz HM. Kushner FG. Lytle BW. Nishimura R. Ornato JP. Page RL. Riegel B. American College of Cardiology. American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction); American College of Emergency Physicians; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; Society for Academic Emergency Medicine: ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction): developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons: endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Circulation. 2007;116:e148–e304. Erratum in Circulation 2008;117:e180. [PubMed]
65. Keeley EC. Boura JA. Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet. 2003;361:13–20. [PubMed]
66. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:217–225. Erratum in N Engl J Med 1997;336:147. [PubMed]
67. Schwartz L. Bertolet M. Feit F. Fuentes F. Sako EY. Toosi MS. Davidson CJ. Ikeno F. King SB., 3rd Impact of completeness of revascularization on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: results from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Apr 10; doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.963512. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
68. Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy—I: Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration. BMJ. 1994;308:81–106. Erratum in BMJ 1994;308:1540. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
69. Nijjer SS. Davies JE. Francis DP. Quantitative comparison of clopidogrel 600mg, prasugrel, ticagrelor, against clopidogrel 300mg on major adverse cardiovascular events, bleeding in coronary stenting: synthesis of CURRENT-OASIS-7, TRITON-TIMI-38, PLATO. Int J Cardiol. 2012 Jan 10; doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.12.046. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
70. Yudkin JS. Managing the diabetic patient with acute myocardial infarction. Diabet Med. 1998;15:276–281. [PubMed]
71. Gottlieb SS. McCarter RJ. Vogel RA. Effect of beta-blockade on mortality among high-risk and low-risk patients after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:489–497. [PubMed]
72. Hirsch IB. Boyle PJ. Craft S. Cryer PE. Higher glycemic thresholds for symptoms during beta-adrenergic blockade in IDDM. Diabetes. 1991;40:1177–1186. [PubMed]

Articles from Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics are provided here courtesy of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.