The reliability and prognosis of in-hospital diagnosis of metabolic syndrome in the setting of acute myocardial infarction.

Arnold SV, Lipska KJ, Li Y, Goyal A, Maddox TM, McGuire DK, Spertus JA, Kosiborod M. The reliability and prognosis of in-hospital diagnosis of metabolic syndrome in the setting of acute myocardial infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013 Aug 20; 62(8):704-8.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 08-021 – Cardiac Risk Factor Management Among CAD Patients After Cardiac Catheterization

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the reliability and prognostic importance of an in-hospital diagnosis of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Because the factors that comprise MetS are believed to be altered in the setting of AMI, the diagnosis of MetS during AMI hospitalization and its prognostic significance have not been studied. METHODS: We assessed patients within a multicenter registry for metabolic factors at baseline and 1 month post-AMI and followed them for mortality and rehospitalizations. The accuracy of an inpatient diagnosis of MetS was calculated using a 1-month follow-up as the gold standard. Patients were categorized based on MetS diagnosis at baseline and 1 month, and the combined endpoint of death or rehospitalization over 12 months was compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 1,129 patients hospitalized for AMI, diagnostic criteria for MetS were met by 69% during AMI hospitalization and 63% at 1 month. Inpatient MetS diagnosis had a sensitivity and specificity for outpatient diagnosis of 87% and 61%, respectively, and was associated with an 11 times increased odds of an outpatient diagnosis (C-index 0.74). Compared with patients without MetS during hospitalization and follow-up, patients classified as MetS during AMI but not follow-up had worse outcomes, whereas those classified MetS at follow-up had the worst outcomes (rates for combined endpoint 27% vs. 37% vs. 38%; log-rank p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with AMI, the diagnosis of MetS is common and can be made with reasonable accuracy during AMI. MetS is associated with poor outcomes, regardless of whether the diagnosis is confirmed during subsequent outpatient visit, and identifies a high-risk cohort of patients that may benefit from more aggressive risk factor modification.