Most information regarding the prognosis and quality of care of patients with diabetes and acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) is derived from studies that have largely focused on middle-aged and older populations (13). Thus, data regarding the presenting features, treatment patterns, and outcomes in smaller proportions of ACS patients with diabetes who are young (an age wherein insulin-dependent diabetes manifests, often portending poor prognosis) has been less well characterized. Accordingly, we sought to evaluate clinical features, management, and in-hospital clinical events among young patients (aged ≤45 years) with and without diabetes who presented with non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE ACS) and who were included in the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines?) Quality Improvement Initiative (46).

The details of the CRUSADE Initiative have been previously published (46). In brief, patients included in the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative were admitted to 498 participating U.S. hospitals with ischemic symptoms at rest within 24 h before presentation and high-risk features including ST-segment depression, transient ST-segment elevation, and/or positive cardiac markers (elevated troponin I or T and/or creatine kinase-MB more than the upper limit of normal for participating institutions). For this study, we analyzed data from 9,643 patients aged ≤45 years out of a total of 138,719 NSTE ACS patients enrolled in the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative between January 2001 and March 2005. Hospitals participating in the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative anonymously collect detailed demographics, clinical and laboratory features, process of care, and in-hospital outcomes data through retrospective chart review. Patients were categorized into two groups: those with and without history of known diabetes as noted on the case-report forms.

Statistical analysis

Quality-of-care indicators for both acute care and discharge care were compared for patients with class IA or IB indication and without any contraindications to such treatments (7). Care patterns and in-hospital events were adjusted for a broad range of patient and hospital characteristics using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Among patients aged ≤45 years, 18.8% (n = 1,808) had diabetes. In contrast, 34% of patients aged >45 years had diabetes. Furthermore, younger patients with diabetes comprised 1.3% of overall and 4% of all patients with diabetes in the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. Young diabetic patients were slightly older and more likely to be female (Table 1). Obesity was more prevalent in diabetic patients, as were most comorbid conditions such as hypertension; dyslipidemia; prior myocardial infarction, revascularization, heart failure, or stroke; peripheral arterial disease; and renal insufficiency. Presenting heart rate and systolic blood pressure were higher and signs of heart failure less frequent in patients with diabetes. Serum triglyceride and LDL were higher in patients with diabetes. The use of all evidence-based therapies (adjusted for confounding factors) were similar in the two groups with the exception of discharge aspirin, clopidogrel, ACE inhibitor, dietary counseling, and referral for cardiac rehabilitation—all of which were significantly higher in patients with diabetes.

After adjusting for confounding, no differences were noted in the incidence of in-hospital mortality (1.4 vs. 1.0%, odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.31–1.23]), death or re-infarction (3.4 vs. 2.6%, 0.90 [0.61–1.33]), heart failure (4.6 vs. 2.0%, 1.21 [0.86–1.70]), or shock (1.2 vs. 1.3%). However, patients with diabetes were more likely to receive a blood transfusion (9.4 vs. 4.7%, 1.35 [1.07–1.69]).

Our data suggest that the presence of diabetes among young NSTE ACS patients is common. We have demonstrated (8) that diabetes was more prevalent among female patients and African Americans with NSTE ACS, and patients with diabetes more commonly had other comorbid medical conditions and high-risk features such as multivessel coronary disease. Most striking was the fact that ∼60% of young patients with diabetes were morbidly obese (BMI >30 kg/m2). Additionally, even among young NSTE ACS patients without diabetes, 40% were obese. Obesity is commonly recognized to be interrelated with glucose intolerance and insulin resistance, among other factors, as a component of metabolic syndrome (9).

We found no difference in the use of acute medications during hospitalization. More impressive was the somewhat better adherence to discharge medications and lifestyle modification strategies in younger patients with diabetes compared with those without diabetes. While overall revascularization rates were similar in the two groups, the choice of revascularization strategy was somewhat different; more patients with diabetes underwent coronary artery bypass surgery, and more nondiabetic patients were treated with percutaneous coronary interventions. This may have been a result of higher prevalence of multivessel coronary disease and more left ventricular systolic dysfunction among patients with diabetes, as well as better survival reported with bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions among those with diabetes and multivessel disease (10).

Finally, in-hospital outcomes, particularly mortality, were not significantly different between the two groups. This is in contrast with previously published studies (11,12) (predominantly consisting of middle-aged or older patients) that found diabetes to be an important predictor of increased mortality and myocardial infarction among patients presenting with NSTE ACS. Only the risk of blood transfusion was increased by twofold among young patients with diabetes and remained significantly higher despite adjustments for confounding clinical variables. This increased risk of bleeding is somewhat counterintuitive, as diabetes has long been recognized as a prothrombotic state (9) and requires future investigations.

In conclusion, our findings indicate that, despite a higher prevalence of comorbid conditions among young NSTE ACS patients with diabetes compared with those without diabetes, adherence to guideline-based therapies and in-hospital mortality are similar among these two groups. Future studies are needed to address the influence of diabetes on long-term outcomes in young patients with NSTE ACS and to decrease the alarming rates of obesity among this population.

Table 1—

Acute medications and discharge therapies and interventions*

OverallDiabetic patientsNondiabetic patients
n 9,643 1,808 (18.8) 7,835 (81.2) — 
Age (years) 41 (38–44) 42 (39–44) 41 (38–44) * 
Female sex 27.9 37.7 25.6 * 
BMI >30 kg/m2 44.6 58.0.2 41.5 * 
Hypertension 48.5 74.2 42.6 * 
Current/recent smoker 58.9 50.1 60.9  
Dyslipidemia 38.4 53.4 35.0 * 
Prior myocardial infarction 18.7 28.2 16.5 * 
Prior revascularization 21.5 34.2 17.5 * 
Prior congestive heart failture 5.4 12.9 3.7 * 
Prior stroke 2.7 5.6 2.0 * 
Renal insufficiency 6.4 17.5 3.9 * 
Presenting characteristics     
    Heart rate (bpm)* 82 (71–96) 89 (77–102) 80 (70–93) * 
    Systolic blood pressure(mmHg)* 140 (123–159) 146 (125–164) 140 (123–158) * 
    Signs of heart failure 9.0 15.0 7.6 * 
    Positive cardiac markers 89.0 90.1 88.7  
Invasive procedures     
    Cardiac catheterization 79.5 77.0 80.1  
    Percutaneous coronary interventions 52.6 50.4 53.1  
    Coronary artery bypass surgery 57.0 58.7 56.6 * 
Multivessel disease 37.9 51.4 34.9 * 
Moderate or severe LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF <40%) 14.0 12.8 19.4 * 
Lipid values (mg/dl)     
    Total cholesterol 192 (161–225) 191 (159–228) 192 (161–225)  
    Triglycerides 157.5 (104–247) 185.5 (118–312) 153 (102–236) * 
    HDL cholesterol 36 (30–44) 35 (29–44) 36 (30–44)  
    LDL cholesterol 116 (90–145) 118 (82–140) 107 (92–146) * 
Medications within 24 h     
    Aspirin 94.9 94.1 95.1  
    Clopidogrel 49.1 46.6 49.7  
    β-Blocker 82.3 84.9 81.7  
    Heparin 85.3 85.0 85.4  
    Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor 50.5 44.7 51.8  
Discharge therapies and interventions§     
    Aspirin 92.8 92.5 92.8 * 
    Clopidogrel 64.8 63.1 65.2 * 
    β-Blocker 84.9 86.6 84.5  
    Any lipid-lowering agents (for patients with     hypercholesterolemia or measured LDL >100 mg/dl) 84.7 85.5 84.4  
    ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor antagonists     (for patients with LVEF <40%, congestive heart     failure, diabetes, or hypertension) 62.9 67.2 61.0 * 
    Diet-modification counseling 78.2 81.3 77.5 * 
    Smoking-cessation counseling 77.8 73.2 78.7  
    Cardiac-rehabilitation referral 51.0 49.0 51.4 * 
OverallDiabetic patientsNondiabetic patients
n 9,643 1,808 (18.8) 7,835 (81.2) — 
Age (years) 41 (38–44) 42 (39–44) 41 (38–44) * 
Female sex 27.9 37.7 25.6 * 
BMI >30 kg/m2 44.6 58.0.2 41.5 * 
Hypertension 48.5 74.2 42.6 * 
Current/recent smoker 58.9 50.1 60.9  
Dyslipidemia 38.4 53.4 35.0 * 
Prior myocardial infarction 18.7 28.2 16.5 * 
Prior revascularization 21.5 34.2 17.5 * 
Prior congestive heart failture 5.4 12.9 3.7 * 
Prior stroke 2.7 5.6 2.0 * 
Renal insufficiency 6.4 17.5 3.9 * 
Presenting characteristics     
    Heart rate (bpm)* 82 (71–96) 89 (77–102) 80 (70–93) * 
    Systolic blood pressure(mmHg)* 140 (123–159) 146 (125–164) 140 (123–158) * 
    Signs of heart failure 9.0 15.0 7.6 * 
    Positive cardiac markers 89.0 90.1 88.7  
Invasive procedures     
    Cardiac catheterization 79.5 77.0 80.1  
    Percutaneous coronary interventions 52.6 50.4 53.1  
    Coronary artery bypass surgery 57.0 58.7 56.6 * 
Multivessel disease 37.9 51.4 34.9 * 
Moderate or severe LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF <40%) 14.0 12.8 19.4 * 
Lipid values (mg/dl)     
    Total cholesterol 192 (161–225) 191 (159–228) 192 (161–225)  
    Triglycerides 157.5 (104–247) 185.5 (118–312) 153 (102–236) * 
    HDL cholesterol 36 (30–44) 35 (29–44) 36 (30–44)  
    LDL cholesterol 116 (90–145) 118 (82–140) 107 (92–146) * 
Medications within 24 h     
    Aspirin 94.9 94.1 95.1  
    Clopidogrel 49.1 46.6 49.7  
    β-Blocker 82.3 84.9 81.7  
    Heparin 85.3 85.0 85.4  
    Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor 50.5 44.7 51.8  
Discharge therapies and interventions§     
    Aspirin 92.8 92.5 92.8 * 
    Clopidogrel 64.8 63.1 65.2 * 
    β-Blocker 84.9 86.6 84.5  
    Any lipid-lowering agents (for patients with     hypercholesterolemia or measured LDL >100 mg/dl) 84.7 85.5 84.4  
    ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor antagonists     (for patients with LVEF <40%, congestive heart     failure, diabetes, or hypertension) 62.9 67.2 61.0 * 
    Diet-modification counseling 78.2 81.3 77.5 * 
    Smoking-cessation counseling 77.8 73.2 78.7  
    Cardiac-rehabilitation referral 51.0 49.0 51.4 * 

Data are percent or median (interquartile range).

§

Among patients without listed contraindications.

*

Higher among patients with diabetes;

lower among patients with diabetes;

similar in the 2 groups, all based on P < 0.05 (for all treatment variables, including invasive procedures, acute and discharge medications, and discharge interventions, P is after adjustment of confounders). LV, left ventricular; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction.

The CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative is funded by the Schering-Plough Corporation, and the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Partnership provides additional funding support.

1.
Lee KL, Woodlief LH, Topol EJ, Weaver WD, Betriu A, Col J, Simoons M, Aylward P, Van de Werf F, Califf RM: Predictors of 30-day mortality in the era of reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction: results from an international trial of 41,021 patients.
Circulation
91
:
1659
–1668,
1995
2.
Mehta RH, Ruane TJ, McCargar PA, Eagle KA, Stalhandske EJ: The treatment of elderly diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction: insight from Michigan’s Cooperative Cardiovascular Project.
Arch Intern Med
160
:
1301
–1306,
2000
3.
Brogan GX Jr, Peterson ED, Mulgund J, Bhatt DL, Ohman EM, Gibler WB, Pollack CV Jr, Farkouh ME, Roe MT: Paradoxical care of the diabetic acute coronary syndrome patient: lack of utilization of ACC/AHA guidelines in the high-risk diabetic patient.
Diabetes Care
29
:
9
–14,
2006
4.
Bhatt DL, Roe MT, Peterson ED, Li Y, Chen AY, Harrington RA, Greenbaum AB, Berger PB, Cannon CP, Cohen DJ, Gibson CM, Saucedo JF, Kleiman NS, Hochman JS, Boden WE, Brindis RG, Peacock WF, Smith SC Jr, Pollack CV Jr, Gibler WB, Ohman EM, the CRUSADE Investigators: Utilization of early invasive management strategies for high-risk patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative.
JAMA
292
:
2096
–2104,
2004
5.
Roe MT, Ohman EM, Pollack CV Jr, Peterson ED, Brindis RG, Harrington RA, Christenson RH, Smith SC Jr, Califf RM, Gibler WB: Changing the model of care for patients with acute coronary syndromes.
Am Heart J
146
:
605
–612,
2003
6.
Sonel AF, Good CB, Mulgund J, Roe MT, Gibler WB, Smith SC Jr, Cohen MG, Pollack CV Jr, Ohman EM, Peterson ED, the CRUSADE Investigators: Racial variations in treatment and outcomes of black and white patients with high-risk non–STelevation acute coronary syndromes: insights from CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines?).
Circulation
111
:
1225
–1232,
2005
7.
Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, Califf RM, Cheitlin MD, Hochman JS, Jones RH, Kereiakes D, Kupersmith J, Levin TN, Pepine CJ, Schaeffer JW, Smith EE III, Steward DE, Theroux P: ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina) [article online], 2002. Washington, DC, American College of Cardiology Foundation. Available from http://www.acc.org/qualityandscience/clinical/guidelines/unstable/incorporated/index.htm. Accessed 20 September
2005
8.
Diabetes statistics [article online]. Alexandria, VA, American Diabetes Association. Available from www.diabetes.org/diabetes-statistics.jsp. Accessed 20 September
2005
9.
Beckman JA, Creager MA, Libby P: Diabetes and atherosclerosis: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management.
JAMA
287
:
2570
–2581,
2002
10.
The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators: Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease.
N Engl J Med
335
:
217
–225,
1996
11.
Kjaergaard SC, Hansen HH, Fog L, Bulow I, Christensen PD: In-hospital outcome for diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction in the thrombolytic era.
Scand Cardiovasc J
33
:
166
–170,
1999
12.
Malmberg K, Yusuf S, Gerstein HC, Brown J, Zhao F, Hunt D, Piegas L, Calvin J, Keltai M, Budaj A: Impact of diabetes on long-term prognosis in patients with unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction: results of the OASIS (Organization to Access Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes) Registry.
Circulation
102
:
1014
–1019,
2000

E.D.P., W.B.G., and E.M.O. have received research grants from Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Partnership, and Schering Corporation. D.L.B. has received research grants and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, and Schering Corporation. M.E.F. has received research grants from and is a member of the speaker’s bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Partnership. M.T.R. has received research grants from and is a member of the speaker’s bureau for Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals Partnership, and Schering Corporation.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.