爷3
생성일: 2025년 7월 12일
질문
Association between stress hyperglycemia ratio and mortality in acute myocardial infarction patients with and without atrial fibrillation: a retrospective cohort study from the MIMIC-IV database
Sen Huang 1,✉, Feng Gao 2,3, Wei-Bin Huang 1, Chen-Chun Xiong 2, Jia-Li Zheng 1
Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information
PMCID: PMC11590502 PMID: 39592927
Abstract
Background
The stress hyperglycemia ratio (SHR) potently predicts adverse outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and previous studies reported U-shaped relationships between SHR and adverse prognosis. However, the relationship between SHR and mortality risk in AMI patients with or without atrial fibrillation (AF) remained unknown, and which factors affect the mortality in lower SHR patients were unclear. This study aims to research the relationship between SHR and mortality risk in AMI patients with or without AF, and whether AF affects the mortality in lower SHR patients.
Methods
We conducted a cohort study using data from 3233 patients with a first diagnosis of AMI from the MIMIC-IV (version 2.2) database. Patients were divided into two groups based on AF. The study outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. SHR was defined as the index calculated by the formula: SHR = (admission glucose) (mmol/L) / (1.59 * HbA1c [%] – 2.59).
Results
U-shaped association between SHR and all-cause mortality was found only in AMI patients with AF, not in AMI patients without AF. For AMI patients with AF, the inflection point for the curve was found to be a SHR of 1.09, either lower (OR, 0.30; 95%CI, 0.10, 0.94) or higher (OR, 3.28; 95%CI, 2.01, 5.34) SHR is associated with increased mortality. However, a linear relationship was found in patients without AF, higher (OR, 1.95; 95%CI, 1.52, 2.51) SHR is associated with increased mortality. For patients with SHR ≤ 1.09, AF increased the risk of all-cause mortality(OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.10, 2.05), while this effect was not found in patients with SHR > 1.09.
Conclusion
The association between SHR and mortality in AMI patients with or without AF is different: U-shaped association between SHR and all-cause mortality only in AMI patients with AF, not in AMI patients without AF. AF is a factor that make the difference by increasing the risk of mortality in AMI patients with low SHR. Lower SHR may increase mortality through the onset of AF. This study emphasizes avoiding “relative hypoglycemia”, SHR = 1.09 is the moderately tight glycemic control, which means glucose level is about (1.59 * HbA1c [%] – 2.59) * 1.09 mmol/L.
Trial registration
Clinical trial number: not applicable.
Keywords: Stress hyperglycemia ratio, Acute myocardial infarction, Atrial fibrillation, Mortality, Stress hyperglycemia
Introduction
Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, with a substantial portion of this burden borne by low- and middle-income countries [1]. Acute coronary syndrome is often the first clinical manifestation of cardiovascular disease. In 2019, there were an estimated 5.8 million new cases of ischemic heart disease in the 57 ESC member countries. Ischemic heart disease is the most common cause of CVD death, accounting for 38% of all CVD deaths in females and 44% in males [1, 2]. The in-hospital mortality rates for unselected patients suffering from ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) across the national registries of European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries range from 4 to 12% [3]. While the reported one-year mortality rate among STEMI patients enrolled in angiographic registries is around 10% [4, 5].
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) itself may give rise to hyperglycemia due to catecholamine-induced stress [1]. Stress hyperglycemia ratio, which is divided admission blood glucose (ABG) measurement by HbA1c, is a novel biomarker of acute hyperglycemic state [6]. SHR has been shown to be significantly associated with poor patient prognosis in several cardiovascular disease studies. In the context of different cardiovascular diseases such as acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction (MI), myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA) lesions, critically ill patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic total occlusion (CTO), SHR has been found to be associated with an increased risk of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) [7–15].
Patients with ACS and hyperglycemia on admission to hospital have a higher risk of death than patients with ACS without hyperglycemia, irrespective of diabetes status [16]. Glucose lowering is important in order to prevent microvascular complications in patients with diabetes mellitus [1]. While the risk of hypoglycemia-related events when using intensive insulin therapy should not be neglected [1], it is best to attempt moderately tight glycemic control while avoiding hypoglycemia in the early hours of ACS [16]. Moderate hyperglycemia constitutes an adaptive and protective response to acute illnesses, J-shaped relationship between stress hyperglycemia ratio and 90-day and 180-day mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction has been reported in a previous study [17], we hypothesis that appropriate SHR can help the moderately glycemic control in patients with ACS.
Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent supraventricular arrhythmia in patients with ACS. AF may be pre-existing, first-time detected, or of new-onset during ACS management [1]. The prevalence of atrial fibrillation in patients with ACS ranges from approximately 2-23% [18]. Patients with AF have a greater number of comorbidities compared with patients without AF and are at higher risk of complications [1]. In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the risk of new onset of AF is significantly higher than in the general population by approximately 60-77% [19]. Atrial fibrillation confers an increased risk of mortality in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, the risk of mortality was 2-fold higher in patients with AF than in those in sinus rhythm [20].
SHR is significantly associated with 1-year and long-term all-cause mortality, which indicates a J-shaped correlation between SHR and all-cause mortality [21]. While AMI patients with AF may have a nearly 2-fold mortality increase than those without AF. In critically ill patients with AF, higher levels of the SHR index are significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days, 180 days, and 365 days [15]. However, the exact role of SHR in AMI patients with or without AF has not been investigated at this time. Meanwhile, the J-shaped or U-shaped correlation between SHR and all-cause mortality means that: lower SHR increases the risk of all-cause mortality, but which factors affect the mortality in lower SHR patients remains unknown. Therefore, our study investigated the role of SHR in AMI patients with or without AF, and whether AF affects the mortality in lower SHR patients.
Methods
Data source
The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV 2.2 version) database provided information on 315,460 inpatients of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center from 2008 to 2019 for the American cohort [22–24]. After becoming a credentialed user on PhysioNet, completing the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Program’s “Data or Specimens Only Research” course (certification No. 35840187) and signing the data use agreement for the project, we obtained approval to use this database. Informed consent from patients was not required as all protected private information had been de-identified. As this is a retrospective observational study, patients and/or the public were not directly involved in this study. Database management software and linguistic tools were used to extract clinical information from patients with AMI.
Selection of participants
Patients meeting the following criteria were included: (1) age over 18 years; (2) combined with AMI; (3) first admitted to hospital. Patients meeting the following criteria were excluded: (1) missing discharge status; (2) insufficient or missing important laboratory results (glucose on admission or glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c]); (3) missing follow-up information. Finally, 3,233 AMI patients were included in MIMIC-IV. Patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of atrial fibrillation, with 950 with atrial fibrillation and 2,283 without. (Fig. 1)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1
Open in a new tab
Flow chart. Abbreviations: AMI: acute myocardial infarction, AF: atrial fibrillation, SHR: Stress hyperglycemia ratio
Data collection
Using the code for data query and extraction from the Repository (website: https://github.com/MIT-LCP/mimic-code/tree/main/mimic-iv), we extracted variables including demographics(age, gender), diagnosis(acute myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation), comorbidities(hypertension, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disesases, cerebrovascular diasese, chronic pulmonary disease), procedure information(percutaneous coronary intervention(including percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, intracoronary artery thrombolytic infusion, insertion of non-drug-eluting coronary artery stent, insertion of drug-eluting coronary artery stent), coronary artery bypass grafting, dailysis), laboratory(white blood cell, albumin, serum creatine, admission blood glucose, HbA1c, low-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, triglyceride), medication(Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor, ARB: Angiotensin Receptor Blocker, ARNI: angiotensin receptor & neprilysin inhibitor, β-Blocker, statins, anti-platelets, oral anticoagulants, diuretic, insulin), and survival information from MIMIC-IV database. Comorbidities were extracted from Charlson Comorbidity Index [25–27] query based on the recorded ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes of discharge diagnoses in MIMIC-IV database, SQL code details can see the repository (website: https://github.com/MIT-LCP/mimic-code/blob/main/mimic-iv/concepts_postgres/comorbidity/charlson.sql), ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 code for Charlson Comorbidities can see the reference behind [25].
Outcomes and definitions
The study outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. SHR was defined as the index calculated by the formula: SHR = (admission glucose) (mmol/L) / (1.59 * HbA1c [%] – 2.59). Atrial fibrillation, including atrial flutter, was extracted using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes of discharge diagnoses in MIMIC-IV database, both of which were defined as AF.
Statistical analysis
We categorized patients into four cohorts according to the quartile of SHR level, both in the presence and absence of AF. Normally distributed data are presented as the mean (SD), skewed distributions are expressed as the median [interquartile range (IQR)], and categorical variables are expressed as n (%). To compare the differences between groups, we used ANOVA analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables, or the chi-square test for categorical data.
We implemented a smooth curve to estimate SHR and all-cause mortality, which was adjusted for age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM), congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney diseases (CKD), cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease (COPD) and revascularization procedures (including percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] and coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]). Smooth curve fitting showed that the independent variable is partitioned into intervals. We apply segmented regression (also known as piece-wise regression) that is using a separate line segment to fit each interval. Log-likelihood ratio test comparing one-line (non-segmented) model to segmented regression model was used to determine whether threshold exists. The inflection point that connecting the segments was based on the model gives maximum likelihood, and it was determined using two steps recursive method.
Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between SHR level and all-cause mortality in both groups. Multivariate regression models included characteristic variables that exhibited significant baseline differences or clinical relevance. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are used to present the results. Model I was adjusted for age and gender, while model II was adjusted for age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease and revascularization procedures (including percutaneous PCI and CABG). To test the robustness of our findings, we applied stratification analysis according to several potential confounding factors at baseline (e.g., age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus).
We used the statistical packages R for all data analyses (The R Foundation; http://www.r-project.org; version 4.2.0) and Empower (R) (www.empowerstats.com, X&Y Solutions, Inc. Boston, MA). P < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant criterion.
Results
Baseline characteristics
A total of 3,233 patients with acute infarction were enrolled in this study, including 950 with atrial fibrillation and 2,283 without. We divided patients into 4 groups based on their SHR level in With-AF group (quartile 1 [n = 237], SHR < 0.86; quartile 2 [n = 238], 0.87 ≤ SHR < 1.04; quartile 3 [n = 237], 1.04 ≤ SHR < 1.31; quartile 4 [n = 238], SHR > 1.31) and Without-AF group (quartile 1 [n = 571], SHR < 0.86; quartile 2 [n = 569], 0.86 ≤ SHR < 1.00; quartile 3 [n = 572], 1.00 ≤ SHR < 1.21; quartile 4 [n = 571], SHR > 1.21).
For medical history and procedure information, higher SHR group had more rates of STEMI, congestive heart failure dialysis, and less rates of CABG in both With-AF group and Without-AF group. There is no significant difference in PCI, number of coronary vessels diseases, procedure on coronary vessels in with-AF group. In without-AF group, Q2 group had higher rate of PCI and procedure on LCX, while procedure on the other vessel (LAD, RCA, LM) is not significant. While Q2 group had lowest rate of diabetes mellitus in both With-AF group and Without-AF group. Q2 group had lowest rate of chronic kidney diseases only in Without-AF group. For laboratory indexes, higher SHR group is associated with higher WBC, higher serum creatinine, higher admission glucose, lower albumin. While Q2 group had lowest HbA1c in both With-AF group and Without-AF group. For medication, higher SHR group has lower rate of β-Blocker, statins, anti-platelets use, but higher rate of oral anticoagulants, diuretic and insulin in Without-AF group, which did not show different in With-AF group. More details are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of participants (N = 3233)
WITHOUT AF WITH AF
SHR quartle OVERALL Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P-value OVERALL Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P-value
< 0.86 0.86–1.00 1.00–1.21 > 1.21 < 0.86 0.87–1.04 1.04–1.31 > 1.31
N = 2283 N = 571 N = 569 N = 572 N = 571 N = 950 N = 237 N = 238 N = 237 N = 238
SHR 1.09 ± 0.40 0.74 ± 0.12 0.93 ± 0.04 1.09 ± 0.06 1.61 ± 0.43 < 0.001 1.15 ± 0.43 0.74 ± 0.11 0.95 ± 0.05 1.17 ± 0.08 1.73 ± 0.41 < 0.001
Age, years 64.7 ± 12.9 65.3 ± 13.2 64.1 ± 12.9 64.1 ± 13.0 65.2 ± 12.3 0.179 72.8 ± 10.8 72.6 ± 10.4 73.8 ± 10.7 72.8 ± 10.7 72.1 ± 11.3 0.38
Female 739 (32.4%) 192 (33.6%) 178 (31.3%) 171 (29.9%) 198 (34.7%) 0.295 330 (34.7%) 87 (36.7%) 74 (31.1%) 77 (32.5%) 92 (38.7%) 0.268
Medical history
STEMI 547 (38.6%) 95 (28.8%) 133 (36.1%) 153 (41.7%) 166 (47.2%) < 0.001 161 (31.1%) 20 (15.3%) 35 (26.7%) 46 (36.8%) 60 (45.8%) < 0.001
Hypertension 1669 (73.1%) 419 (73.4%) 412 (72.4%) 406 (71.0%) 432 (75.7%) 0.338 790 (83.2%) 203 (85.7%) 194 (81.5%) 203 (85.7%) 190 (79.8%) 0.217
CHF 821 (36.0%) 170 (29.8%) 167 (29.3%) 209 (36.5%) 275 (48.2%) < 0.001 548 (57.7%) 116 (48.9%) 135 (56.7%) 131 (55.3%) 166 (69.7%) < 0.001
DM 951 (41.7%) 270 (47.3%) 177 (31.1%) 196 (34.3%) 308 (53.9%) < 0.001 440 (46.3%) 115 (48.5%) 85 (35.7%) 103 (43.5%) 137 (57.6%) < 0.001
CKD 492 (21.6%) 132 (23.1%) 94 (16.5%) 109 (19.1%) 157 (27.5%) < 0.001 295 (31.1%) 69 (29.1%) 73 (30.7%) 70 (29.5%) 83 (34.9%) 0.511
CVD 284 (12.4%) 66 (11.6%) 70 (12.3%) 60 (10.5%) 88 (15.4%) 0.071 211 (22.2%) 52 (21.9%) 58 (24.4%) 58 (24.5%) 43 (18.1%) 0.293
COPD 442 (19.4%) 109 (19.1%) 94 (16.5%) 106 (18.5%) 133 (23.3%) 0.031 258 (27.2%) 71 (30.0%) 71 (29.8%) 55 (23.2%) 61 (25.6%) 0.267
Procedure information
PCI 531 (23.3%) 127 (22.2%) 158 (27.8%) 131 (22.9%) 115 (20.1%) 0.019 105 (11.1%) 17 (7.2%) 31 (13.0%) 27 (11.4%) 30 (12.6%) 0.159
Vessels disease 1.94 ± 0.87 1.90 ± 0.84 1.92 ± 0.89 1.94 ± 0.89 2.00 ± 0.88 0.817 2.2 ± 1.0 1.8 ± 0.9 2.6 ± 1.1 2.3 ± 1.0 2.1 ± 0.9 0.098
Procedure vessels
LAD 225 (42.78%) 52 (41.27%) 69 (43.67%) 52 (40.62%) 52 (45.61%) 0.853 49 (48.0%) 9 (52.9%) 15 (51.7%) 13 (48.1%) 12 (41.4%) 0.841
LCX 136 (25.86%) 24 (19.05%) 53 (33.54%) 33 (25.78%) 26 (22.81%) 0.037 22 (21.6%) 5 (29.4%) 7 (24.1%) 5 (18.5%) 5 (17.2%) 0.753
RCA 207 (39.35%) 59 (46.83%) 61 (38.61%) 51 (39.84%) 36 (31.58%) 0.117 29 (28.4%) 4 (23.5%) 8 (27.6%) 8 (29.6%) 9 (31.0%) 0.955
LM 15 (2.85%) 2 (1.59%) 6 (3.80%) 2 (1.56%) 5 (4.39%) 0.396 5 (4.9%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (10.3%) 1 (3.7%) 1 (3.4%) 0.402
CABG 308 (13.5%) 88 (15.4%) 86 (15.1%) 76 (13.3%) 58 (10.2%) 0.036 232 (24.4%) 72 (30.4%) 67 (28.2%) 52 (21.9%) 41 (17.2%) 0.003
Dialysis 113 (4.9%) 14 (2.5%) 22 (3.9%) 23 (4.0%) 54 (9.5%) < 0.001 78 (8.2%) 12 (5.1%) 23 (9.7%) 14 (5.9%) 29 (12.2%) 0.015
Laboratory indexes
Platelet, 10^9/L 276.9 ± 117.3 271.3 ± 103.1 273.0 ± 111.1 271.7 ± 115.8 291.5 ± 135.6 0.007 304.5 ± 127.1 303.8 ± 124.0 301.1 ± 114.2 310.8 ± 140.2 302.2 ± 129.1 0.841
WBC, 10^9/L 13.6 ± 6.1 12.7 ± 5.6 12.8 ± 5.8 13.4 ± 5.9 15.6 ± 6.8 < 0.001 17.5 ± 7.6 16.4 ± 7.1 17.7 ± 8.2 17.5 ± 7.2 18.3 ± 7.7 0.049
Albumin, g/dL 3.7 ± 0.5 3.7 ± 0.5 3.7 ± 0.5 3.7 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 0.5 < 0.001 3.6 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 0.5 3.5 ± 0.5 0.226
SCr. mg/dL 1.1 (0.9–1.6) 1.1 (0.9–1.6) 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 1.1 (0.9–1.5) 1.3 (1.0-2.2) < 0.001 1.4 (1.1–2.2) 1.3 (1.0–2.0) 1.4 (1.1–2.4) 1.4 (1.1-2.0) 1.6 (1.1–2.5) 0.186
ABG, mmol/L 6.9 (5.8–9.6) 6.0 ± 1.9 6.8 ± 2.1 8.2 ± 2.8 11.2 (8.6–16.4) < 0.001 8.7 ± 4.4 5.9 ± 1.5 7.0 ± 1.9 8.6 ± 2.4 13.4 ± 5.7 < 0.001
HbA1c, % 6.5 ± 1.7 6.9 ± 1.8 6.2 ± 1.4 6.3 ± 1.6 6.7 ± 1.8 < 0.001 6.4 ± 1.4 6.8 ± 1.6 6.2 ± 1.2 6.3 ± 1.2 6.4 ± 1.3 < 0.001
LDL, mg/dL 94.4 ± 40.6 96.6 ± 38.0 95.9 ± 36.7 96.6 ± 38.7 87.9 ± 48.2 0.027 80.2 ± 37.9 75.1 ± 33.2 79.8 ± 40.4 87.8 ± 44.3 78.1 ± 31.6 0.131
TC, mg/dL 166.3 ± 47.1 168.2 ± 44.5 168.0 ± 42.3 168.8 ± 43.4 159.5 ± 57.4 0.055 147.0 ± 45.2 139.7 ± 40.3 145.9 ± 49.0 158.6 ± 51.6 143.9 ± 36.2 0.029
TG, mg/dL 118.0 (89.0-164.0) 119.0 (88.0-156.0) 118.0 (89.5-171.5) 114.0 (88.0-167.5) 118.0 (90.0-161.0) 0.5 102.0 (77.0-138.0) 103.0 (81.8–137.0) 104.0 (75.0-131.5) 106.0 (79.0-173.8) 88.0 (72.8-129.2) 0.105
ACEI/ARB/ARNI 1399 (61.3%) 341 (59.7%) 351 (61.7%) 372 (65.0%) 335 (58.7%) 0.129 542 (57.1%) 141 (59.5%) 145 (60.9%) 133 (56.1%) 123 (51.7%) 0.178
β-Blocker 1990 (87.2%) 495 (86.7%) 511 (89.8%) 512 (89.5%) 472 (82.7%) < 0.001 885 (93.2%) 221 (93.2%) 224 (94.1%) 222 (93.7%) 218 (91.6%) 0.716
Statins 2172 (95.1%) 549 (96.1%) 547 (96.1%) 546 (95.5%) 530 (92.8%) 0.026 893 (94.0%) 224 (94.5%) 225 (94.5%) 222 (93.7%) 222 (93.3%) 0.919
Anti-platelets 2219 (97.2%) 558 (97.7%) 561 (98.6%) 554 (96.9%) 546 (95.6%) 0.018 916 (96.4%) 230 (97.0%) 230 (96.6%) 231 (97.5%) 225 (94.5%) 0.321
Oral anticoagulants 262 (11.5%) 55 (9.6%) 53 (9.3%) 74 (12.9%) 80 (14.0%) 0.025 574 (60.4%) 148 (62.4%) 128 (53.8%) 150 (63.3%) 148 (62.2%) 0.116
Diuretic 1220 (53.4%) 302 (52.9%) 272 (47.8%) 302 (52.8%) 344 (60.2%) < 0.001 786 (82.7%) 193 (81.4%) 197 (82.8%) 193 (81.4%) 203 (85.3%) 0.647
Insulin 1415 (62.0%) 362 (63.4%) 307 (54.0%) 327 (57.2%) 419 (73.4%) < 0.001 770 (81.1%) 193 (81.4%) 186 (78.2%) 190 (80.2%) 201 (84.5%) 0.356
Open in a new tab
Abbreviations: AMI: acute myocardial infarction, AF: atrial fibrillation, SHR: stress hyperglycemia ratio, STEMI: ST-elevated myocardial infarction, DM: Diabetes mellitus, CKD: chronic kidney diseases, CVD: Cerebrovascular disease, CHF: chronic heart failure, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention, LAD: left anterior descending artery, LCX: left circumflex coronary artery, RCA: right coronary artery, LM: left main artery, CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting, WBC: white blood cell, SCr: serum creatine, ABG: admission blood glucose, HbA1c: hemoglobin a1c, LDL: low-density lipoprotein, TC: total cholesterol, TG: triglyceride, ACEI: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor, ARB: Angiotensin Receptor Blocker, ARNI: angiotensin receptor & neprilysin inhibitor
In the Without-AF group, totally 300 patients (13.1%) experienced all-cause mortality, with the highest mortality in quartile 4 (n = 119, 20.8%). In the With-AF group, totally 231 patients (24.3%) experienced all-cause mortality, with the highest mortality in quartile 4 (n = 82 ,35.5%).
Association of SHR with all-cause mortality
The non-linear association between SHR and all-cause mortality was examined before and after adjustment for confounding factors.
In the With-AF group, after fully adjusting for the confounding factors of age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney diseases, cerebrovascular disease, COPD, PCI, CABG, the smooth curve supported a U-shaped relationship between SHR and all-cause mortality (P = 0.0003) (Fig. 2B). The inflection point for SHR was 1.09 for 1-year all-cause mortality. P for the log‐likelihood ratio test was less than 0.05 (P = 0.001), indicating that the two‐piecewise linear regression model was suitable for fitting the association between SHR and all-cause mortality. As shown in Table 2 for 1-year all-cause mortality, the ORs(95%CIs) were 0.30 (0.10, 0.94) (P = 0.0381) on the left side of inflection point and 3.28 (2.01, 5.34) (P < 0.0001) on the right side of inflection point. In the fully adjusted model, when compared with the quartile 3 (1.04 ≤ SHR < 1.31), patients with an SHR ≥ 1.31 (quartile 4) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (OR = 2.54 95%CI: 1.60–4.04, P < 0.001).
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2
Open in a new tab
Association of SHR and 1-year all-cause mortality in AMI patients with or without AF. (A) SHR and all-cause mortality at 1-year follow-up in AMI patients without AF. (B) SHR and all-cause mortality at 1-year follow-up in AMI patients with AF. Solid red line represents the smooth curve fit between variables. Blue bands represent the 95% of confidence interval from the fit. All adjusted for age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, CKD, CHF, stroke, anemia, and revascularization procedures (including PCI and CABG)
Table 2.
Relationship between SHR and all-cause mortality and threshold effect analysis using Piece-wise Linear regression
WITHOUT AF WITH AF
Crude Model Adjust I Adjust II Crude Model Adjust I Adjust II
OR (95%CI) P value OR (95%CI) P value OR (95%CI) P value OR (95%CI) P value OR (95%CI) P value OR (95%CI) P value
SHR (continuous) 2.33 (1.83, 2.95) < 0.0001 2.41 (1.88, 3.08) < 0.0001 1.95 (1.52, 2.51) < 0.0001 1.83 (1.32, 2.54) 0.0003 1.97 (1.40, 2.78) < 0.0001 1.88 (1.32, 2.69) 0.0005
Inflection point 1.86 1.86 1.29 1.09 0.78 1.09
< Inflection point 2.86 (1.94, 4.20) < 0.0001 2.98 (2.01, 4.41) < 0.0001 2.83 (1.44, 5.54) 0.0025 0.38 (0.13, 1.10) 0.0751 0.01 (0.00, 0.19) 0.0017 0.30 (0.10, 0.94) 0.0381
> Inflection point 1.72 (1.06, 2.80) 0.0281 1.75 (1.07, 2.89) 0.027 1.67 (1.18, 2.37) 0.0042 2.91 (1.86, 4.56) < 0.0001 2.50 (1.73, 3.60) 0.0017 3.28 (2.01, 5.34) < 0.0001
Log-likelihood ratio test 0.187 0.178 0.24 0.003 < 0.001 0.001
SHR (categorical)
Quartile 1 Ref Ref Ref 1.31 (0.83, 2.07) 0.2463 1.32 (0.83, 2.12) 0.2437 1.42 (0.87, 2.31) 0.1581
Quartile 2 0.95 (0.64, 1.40) 0.7793 1.01 (0.68, 1.51) 0.947 1.10 (0.72, 1.67) 0.6518 1.51 (0.96, 2.36) 0.0744 1.46 (0.92, 2.32) 0.1093 1.54 (0.95, 2.49) 0.0778
Quartile 3 1.26 (0.87, 1.82) 0.2258 1.36 (0.93, 1.99) 0.1099 1.40 (0.94, 2.09) 0.0965 Ref Ref Ref
Quartile 4 2.37 (1.69, 3.34) < 0.0001 2.57 (1.81, 3.65) < 0.0001 2.20 (1.53, 3.18) < 0.0001 2.51 (1.63, 3.86) < 0.0001 2.61 (1.67, 4.07) < 0.0001 2.54 (1.60, 4.04) < 0.0001
Open in a new tab
Crude model: we did not adjust other covariates
Adjust I adjust for: age, gender
Adjust II adjust for: age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney diseases, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting
Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval, OR: odds ratio, AF: atrial fibrillation, SHR: stress hyperglycemia ratio
In the Without-AF group, after fully adjusting for the confounding factors above, the smooth curve supported a linear-like shaped relationship between SHR and all-cause mortality (Fig. 2A). As shown in Table 2, for 1-year all-cause mortality, the OR (95%CIs) was 1.95 (1.52, 2.51) (P < 0.0001). In the fully adjusted model, when compared with the quartile 1(SHR < 0.86), patients with an SHR ≥ 1.21 (quartile 4) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (OR = 2.20 95%CI: 1.53–3.18, P < 0.001).
Effect size of AF on all-cause mortality in SHR subgroups and sensitive analysis
To evaluate the effect of AF on mortality in low SHR and high SHR groups, patients were divided into two groups according to the SHR inflection point above (Fig. 1). Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between AF and mortality in both groups. After fully adjusting for the confounding factors of age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney diseases, cerebrovascular disease, COPD, PCI, CABG, SHR, the OR(95%CIs) of AF was 1.50 (1.10, 2.05) (P = 0.0101) in the SHR ≤ 1.09 group (Table 3), while the effect of AF was not significant in the SHR > 1.09 group: the OR (95%CIs) was 1.20 (0.88, 1.63) (P = 0.2549).
Table 3.
Effect size of AF on all-cause mortality in SHR subgroups
Crude Model Adjust I Adjust II
Sub-group OR (95%CI) P value OR (95%CI) P value OR (95%CI) P value
SHR ≤ 1.09 2.61 (1.99, 3.42) < 0.0001 1.85 (1.39, 2.45) < 0.0001 1.50 (1.10, 2.05) 0.0101
SHR > 1.09 1.61 (1.22, 2.12) 0.0007 1.20 (0.89, 1.61) 0.2223 1.20 (0.88, 1.63) 0.2549
Open in a new tab
Crude model: we did not adjust other covariates
Adjust I adjust for: age, gender, SHR
Adjust II adjust for: age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney diseases, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, SHR
Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval, OR: odds ratio, AF: atrial fibrillation, SHR: stress hyperglycemia ratio
In sensitivity analyses (Table 4), the significant effect of AF on all-cause mortality in the SHR ≤ 1.09 group remain similar when we stratified the analyses according to major confounding factors except CABG and cerebrovascular diseases. Even those these two confounding factors were not statistically significant, but still remained positive relationship similar to the other confounding factors. However, the effects of AF on all-cause mortality in the SHR > 1.09 group were different when we stratified the analyses according to major confounding factors. Only in the subgroup included: gender, PCI remain similar effect, while in the other subgroup, AF showed different effect on all-cause mortality, which may explain that the effect of AF was not significant in the SHR > 1.09 group.
Table 4.
Effect size of AF on all-cause mortality and exploratory in prespecified subgroups in each subgroup
Sub-group SHR < = 1.09 SHR > 1.09
Characteristic No. of participants OR (95%CI) P No. of participants OR (95%CI) P
Age Tertile N
Low 646 3.26 (1.51, 7.04) 0.0026 404 1.88 (0.96, 3.69) 0.0648
Middle 607 2.03 (1.17, 3.53) 0.0116 447 0.84 (0.49, 1.42) 0.5056
High 697 1.65 (1.16, 2.36) 0.0058 432 1.50 (1.00, 2.25) 0.049
Gender
Female 630 2.89 (1.89, 4.43) < 0.0001 439 1.78 (1.16, 2.73) 0.0082
Male 1320 2.43 (1.71, 3.47) < 0.0001 844 1.47 (1.02, 2.11) 0.0381
Hypertension
No 483 3.00 (1.52, 5.92) 0.0016 291 1.60 (0.84, 3.03) 0.1528
Yes 1467 2.41 (1.79, 3.24) < 0.0001 992 1.59 (1.17, 2.15) 0.003
Diabetes
No 1193 2.21 (1.51, 3.24) < 0.0001 649 1.93 (1.30, 2.87) 0.0011
Yes 757 2.99 (2.03, 4.41) < 0.0001 634 1.35 (0.92, 1.98) 0.1222
CHF
No 1253 2.45 (1.57, 3.82) < 0.0001 611 2.10 (1.34, 3.29) 0.0012
Yes 697 1.86 (1.30, 2.66) 0.0006 672 1.22 (0.86, 1.73) 0.2654
CKD
No 1525 2.90 (2.05, 4.09) < 0.0001 921 1.89 (1.34, 2.67) 0.0003
Yes 425 1.69 (1.08, 2.65) 0.0221 362 1.10 (0.70, 1.74) 0.6788
CVD
No 1660 2.68 (1.92, 3.73) < 0.0001 1078 1.54 (1.12, 2.11) 0.0081
Yes 290 1.49 (0.90, 2.45) 0.1202 205 1.49 (0.84, 2.64) 0.1773
COPD
No 1539 2.54 (1.82, 3.54) < 0.0001 994 2.02 (1.47, 2.79) < 0.0001
Yes 411 2.21 (1.37, 3.57) 0.0011 289 0.83 (0.49, 1.43) 0.5086
PCI
No 1537 2.35 (1.77, 3.14) < 0.0001 1060 1.45 (1.08, 1.95) 0.0144
Yes 413 2.95 (1.23, 7.08) 0.0156 223 2.82 (1.36, 5.86) 0.0055
CABG
No 1582 3.12 (2.33, 4.18) < 0.0001 1111 1.65 (1.23, 2.21) 0.0008
Yes 368 2.04 (0.91, 4.58) 0.0834 172 2.58 (0.98, 6.74) 0.054
SHR Tertile
Low 646 2.28 (1.46, 3.57) 0.0003 428 1.27 (0.71, 2.26) 0.4226
Middle 650 3.33 (2.04, 5.46) < 0.0001 427 1.66 (1.03, 2.67) 0.0384
High 654 2.38 (1.49, 3.79) 0.0003 428 1.61 (1.05, 2.46) 0.0291
Open in a new tab
Adjust for: age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney diseases, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting and SHR except the subgroup variable
Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval, OR: odds ratio, AF: atrial fibrillation, SHR: stress hyperglycemia ratios, CKD: chronic kidney diseases, CVD: Cerebrovascular disease, CHF: chronic heart failure, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting
Discussion
In this study of 3233 AMI patients, including 950 with AF and 2283 without AF, we found a U-shaped association between SHR and all-cause mortality only in AMI patients with AF, not in AMI patients without AF. For patients with AF, the inflection point for the curve was found to be a SHR of 1.09, either lower (OR, 0.30; 95%CI, 0.10, 0.94) or higher (OR, 3.28; 95%CI, 2.01, 5.34) SHR is associated with increased mortality. However, linear relationship was found in patients without AF, higher (OR, 1.95; 95%CI, 1.52, 2.51) SHR is associated with increased mortality. We further explored the reasons for this difference. For patients with SHR ≤ 1.09, AF increased the risk of all-cause mortality (OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.10, 2.05). while this effect was not found in patients with SHR > 1.09. To the best of our knowledge, it’s the first to find that the different association between SHR and mortality in AMI patients with or without AF, and AF is a factor to make the difference by increasing the risk of mortality in AMI patients with low SHR.
Moderate hyperglycemia constitutes an adaptive and protective response to acute illnesses, augmenting cellular glucose uptake. This mechanism serves to preserve the energy metabolism of the myocardium during episodes of hypoxia or ischemia [28–30]. However, an inappropriate glycemia response is the presenting manifestation of impaired glycemic regulation [17]. Excess hyperglycemia response leads to insulin resistance (IR), inflammatory reactions, and severe dysfunction of glucose metabolism [31], which is significantly associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with acute ischemic stroke, sepsis, coronary heart disease, heart failure [32–35]. Nevertheless, hyperglycemia in a hospitalized patient may reflect chronic poor diabetes control, SHR controls for background glycemia, which identifies patients with relative hyperglycemia at risk of critical illness other than absolute hyperglycemia [6].
Association between SHR and prognosis in patients with ACS has been seen in previous studies [10, 13, 17, 36–39], most researchers reported a U-shaped or J-shaped association. Wei et al. reported a J-shaped correlation of SHR and in-hospital death, all-cause mortality in 1099 STEMI patients treated with PCI, the inflection point for SHR was estimated to be 1.2 [10]. Hu et al. found a J-shaped correlation between SHR and 90-day and 180-day mortality, with an adverse prognostic inflection point of SHR at 0.9 in 1961 patients with a first diagnosis of AMI [17]. Zhang et al. reported 3812 triple-vessel disease patients with ACS with high SHR had an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality after robust adjustment for confounding, which was fitted as a J-shaped pattern [39]. Chen et al. enrolled in 341 elderly patients with acute myocardial Infarction, and higher SHR was independently associated with in-hospital MACCEs and all-cause death based on a non-linear dose-response curve [13]. Wang et al. reported U-shaped association between SHR and in-hospital MACEs, both low and high SHR levels were independently associated with in-hospital MACEs [38].
Our study shows that the association between SHR and mortality in patients with or without AF is different, and AF significant increased mortality in patients with SHR lower than the inflection point. Lower SHR means inadequate response to acute illnesses, insufficient reserve capacity for stress response, which may mean patients suffer from “relative hypoglycemia” to acute illnesses situation. Hypoglycemia can cause transient cardiac stress because increased adrenergic tension increases heart rate, blood pressure, myocardial contractility, and cardiac output [40]. These effects, combined with increased blood clotting and viscosity, suggest that hypoglycemia may promote myocardial ischemia and other serious cardiovascular outcomes, especially in the elderly or other vulnerable populations [41–43]. Seung-Hyun Ko et al. reported severe hypoglycemia events were associated with a higher risk of new onset AF and all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 Diabetes mellitus [44]. In addition, atrial fibrillation in diabetic patients can lead to excessive cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [45]. According to the ADVANCE (Diabetes and Vascular Disease Action: PreterAx and Diamicron-MR Controlled Assessment) study, AF is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, stroke, and heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes [46]. Hypoglycemia increases the risk of arrhythmia and a high cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes. During hypoglycemia or severe hypoglycemia events, bradycardia, prolonged QTc intervals, and atrial and ventricular ectopic beats are significantly elevated, this hypoglycemia-associated arrhythmia is thought to be a predisposing factor in stress hyperglycemia induced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [44]. The arrhythmogenic effect of hypoglycemia is likely to be greatest in patients with pre-existent cardiac disease and diabetes [47].
However, for the limitations of the MIMC-IV database and this study is retrospective, it remains unknown whether the patient has a history of atrial fibrillation or new-onset atrial fibrillation in this acute illness. Whether hypoglycemia increased mortality through new onset of AF or patients with AF were more sensitive to hypoglycemia, requires further investigation. Based on previous illustration for the arrhythmogenic effect of hypoglycemia, we hypothesis that lower SHR, which we called it as “relative hypoglycemia” to acute illnesses situation, may increase mortality through onset of AF. Previous study showed that compared with patients without AF, patients with AF are at higher risk of complications [1]. Atrial fibrillation confers an increased risk of mortality in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, the risk of mortality was 2-fold higher in patients with AF than in those in sinus rhythm [20].
The current guidelines emphasize it is best to attempt moderately tight glycemic control while avoiding hypoglycemia in the early hours of ACS [16], and the risk of hypoglycemia-related events when using intensive insulin therapy should not be neglected [1]. Based on our study, the “relative hypoglycemia” should not be neglected, too. And based on background glucose level using HbA1c, our study shows that SHR = 1.09 is just the moderately tight glycemic control, which means glucose level = (1.59 * HbA1c [%] – 2.59) * 1.09 mmol/L.
Our study has several limitations. First, the study design was retrospective, so definitive conclusions may not be drawn. Second, as a single-centre study with limited sample size, potential bias due to residual confounders may persist even after multivariate adjustment and subgroup analysis. Third, given the inherent limitations of the MIMC-IV database, sociodemographic factors and risk stratifications, such as socioeconomic status and GRACE score, were not taken into account, which could introduce potential bias in the findings. Fourth, selection bias may have been introduced by excluding individuals with deficient glucose or HbA1c data. Fifth, congestive heart failure in this study was based on recorded ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, we cannot distinguish between different types of congestive heart failure, such as HFpEF, HFmEF or HFrEF. Sixth, for the difference between ICD code and classifications for the temporal pattern of atrial fibrillation most of the AF patterns in our study were unspecific: 33 patients with paroxysmal AF diagnosis, 11 patients with persistent AF, whereas the pattern of atrial fibrillation in the remaining 906 patients was unspecific. Finally, no distinction was made between the specific type of acute myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation presented by the patients and its relationship to the assessed endpoint.
Conclusions
The association between SHR and mortality in AMI patients with or without AF is different: U-shaped association between SHR and all-cause mortality only in AMI patients with AF, not in AMI patients without AF. AF is a factor that makes the different by increasing the risk of mortality in AMI patients with low SHR. Lower SHR may increase mortality through the onset of AF. This study emphasizes avoiding “relative hypoglycemia”, SHR = 1.09 is the moderately tight glycemic control, which means glucose level is about (1.59 * HbA1c [%] – 2.59) * 1.09 mmol/L.请分析这篇文章，尤其是纳排范围，统计学方法的顺序逻辑思路与研究结果，因变量，协变量，自变量，以及对自变量的处理方式，有不同的因变量吗？这篇文章如何定义“合并心梗的房颤患者？”以及应该如何纳排筛选这类的患者？（不用提供代码，我使用的是一个商业化图像化统计软件，给我逻辑）
사고
답변
以下内容侧重“方法学逻辑”而不是代码实现，方便你在可视化统计软件里一步步复现。为了行文清晰，我按 5 个层面展开：①纳排标准（研究对象的筛选顺序），②变量体系（因变量、协变量、自变量），③自变量的处理方式，④统计分析流程逻辑，⑤“AMI 合并房颤”患者的界定与实操筛选建议。
① 纳入 / 排除范围（“纳排”顺序逻辑）
| 步骤 | 具体规则 | 逻辑/目的 |
|---|---|---|
| 1. 数据源 | MIMIC-IV v2.2（2008-2019） | 公开 ICU 数据库，含出院后死亡信息，便于取 1 年全因死亡 |
| 2. 初筛：疾病 & 年龄 | ① ICD-9/10 = AMI（如 ICD-9 410.xx；ICD-10 I21.x、I22.x）<br>② 年龄 ≥ 18 岁 | 仅研究成人首次住院急性心梗 |
| 3. 首次住院 | 同一患者只保留第一次住院记录 | 避免重复计量 & 混淆时间顺序 |
| 4. 关键检验指标完整 | 需同时有：① 入院随机血糖 (admission glucose)<br>② HbA1c | 二者缺一无法计算 SHR |
| 5. 结局信息完整 | ① 有出院状态<br>② 可获得随访至 1 年的死亡信息 | 保障因变量可用 |
| 6. 最终样本 | 满足以上全部条件者，共 3233 例 | 其中 950 例“带 AF”，2283 例“不带 AF” |
提示： 自行筛选时，先执行“疾病+年龄+首次住院”再校验变量完整性，可一次性减少多余 SQL / 可视化过滤步骤。
② 变量体系概览
| 类型 | 变量 | 数据表字段示例 / 说明 |
|---|---|---|
| 自变量 | SHR = admission glucose ÷ (1.59 × HbA1c – 2.59) | 连续变量；亦按四分位分组 |
| 因变量 | 1-year 全因死亡 (binary，0/1) | 通过 mimic_iv.icustays + mimic_iv.admissions 关联死亡日期 |
| 协变量 | 人口学：年龄、性别<br>合并症：HTN、DM、CHF、CKD、CVD、COPD<br>病情/操作：STEMI、PCI、CABG、Dialysis、血管支架部位数等 | 取自 ICD、手术/程序、实验室、处方、CHARLSON 查询结果等 |
是否存在多个因变量？
文章仅分析 1 年全因死亡；其它指标（如院内 MACE 等）未作为主要或次要结局。因此本研究只有单一因变量，后续所有模型都围绕这一结局展开。
③ 自变量（SHR）的处理方式
- 计算公式（先算再入模型）：
SHR = admission_glucose (mmol/L) ÷ (1.59 × HbA1c[%] – 2.59) - 连续形式：
用于平滑曲线 & 分段回归，探讨非线性（U-/J 型）关联。 - 分类形式：
- 四分位：各组 n 大致均衡，用来描述基线并在逻辑回归中检验趋势。
- 阈值二分：根据分段回归得到的拐点（AF 组 1.09；无 AF 组 ~1.20-1.30）将 SHR 分为“低 / 高”两档，用来测试交互（AF × SHR）。
④ 统计分析的顺序与逻辑
一句话： 先描基线→检形状→定阈值→跑多元→做交互敏感性。
-
基线描述（Table 1）
- SHR 四分位 × AF 有无 → 8 个子组。
- 检验：正态分布用 ANOVA，偏态用 Kruskal-Wallis，分类用 χ²。
-
非线性探索
- 平滑曲线（图 2）：以 SHR 连续值对 1 年死亡画 LOESS/Restricted Cubic Spline。
- 分段（Piece-wise）回归：对比单线性 vs. 双线性；用对数似然比检验选模型，确定拐点(threshold)。
-
多元 Logistic 回归
- 模型分层：Crude → Model I（+年龄性别）→ Model II（+全部协变量）。
- 两种 SHR 表达：连续 (OR/1 unit) 与分类 (Q2-Q4 对 Q1；或 ≤/＞阈值)。
-
交互 / 敏感性分析
- AF × SHR 交互：将 SHR 先二分 (≤1.09, >1.09)，分别检验 AF 对死亡影响。
- 分层敏感性：再按年龄、性别、DM、PCI 等分层，验证结果稳健性。
⑤ “合并心梗的房颤患者”的定义与筛选建议
| 文章定义 | 実操筛选步骤（MIMIC-IV） | 备注 |
|---|---|---|
| 凡住院记录 同时出现<br>① AMI ICD 代码<br>② AF ICD 代码（含房扑） | 1. 锁定 AMI：diagnoses_icd.icd_code in (410.xx / I21.x / I22.x…)。<br>2. 房颤标记：同一 hadm_id 出现 ICD-9 427.31, 427.32 或 ICD-10 I48.x。<br>3. 合并：把以上 hadm_id 交集作为“AMI+AF”。 | 区分既往 vs. 住院新发在本文中做不到；作者直接按“是否带 AF 诊断”划分。 |
| 不区分房颤类型（阵发/持续/慢性） | 除非后续研究想探讨新发 AF，可额外：<br>• 用 chartevents 搜索心电图事件时间与 AF 诊断时间差；<br>• 用 date_diff(icustay_start, af_first_time) 估计住院中新发。 | 文章指出此信息缺失，属局限性。 |
纳排顺序小贴士（适配商业可视化工具）
- Filter-1：年龄 ≥ 18。
- Filter-2：ICD = AMI。
- Deduplicate：每个
subject_id保留第一次hadm_id。 - Filter-3：入院随机血糖 & HbA1c 不缺失。
- Filter-4：死亡信息存在。
- 派生变量：
SHR列（公式计算）。AF_flag（AMI+AF yes/no）。
- 分组与可视化：按
AF_flag拆分，再用 SHR 四分位或阈值分类，接入你软件的流程图 / 检验模块即可。
小结（可作为你下游操作的 checklist）
- 自变量：SHR（连续、分位、阈值）。
- 因变量：1-year all-cause mortality（唯一）。
- 协变量：人口学 + 合并症 + 手术/程序 + 部分生化。
- 主要分析：
- 描述性比较 → 非线性拟合 → 分段 Logistic → 交互敏感性。
- AMI + AF 定义：同一住院记录同时含 AMI 与 AF ICD 码；无需区分既往或新发。
- 纳排顺序：年龄→AMI→首住院→变量完整→死亡完整。
按此逻辑，你即可在商业化可视化软件里复现文章的全流程或做延伸分析。祝顺利！
질문
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 这个期刊如何，会歧视中国作者吗？是否属于美国政府NIBC之类的，是否有要求诸如对于中国人使用MIMIC数据库的限制？
사고
답변
一、BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 是什么水平的期刊？
| 关键维度 | 最新数据 | 说明 |
|---|---|---|
| 出版商 | BioMed Central（隶属 Springer Nature，总部英国） | 并非任何美国政府机构所有 |
| 出版模式 | 完全开放获取（Gold OA） | 文章上线即免费阅读 |
| 2024 JIF | 2.3；5-year JIF 2.3 | 处于心血管方向 SCI 三/四区，学术影响中等 BioMed Central |
| 投稿→首决定中位 | 23 天 | 流程相对迅速 BioMed Central |
| 投稿→接收中位 | 146 天 | 含同行评审与修订时间 BioMed Central |
| APC（版面费） | £2 290 / $3 090 / €2 590 | 有国家分级优惠与减免政策 BioMed Central |
| 中国作者占比 | 近五年发文 ≈ 41 % | 中文论文大量见刊，未见歧视性证据 Peipusci |
结论：该刊定位于“可发表临床-基础-转化研究的综合心血管 OA 期刊”，影响因子属中游，审稿-出版节奏较快，和国内作者互动频繁，实务中看不到“歧视中国作者”的迹象（相反，中国是最大投稿国之一）。
二、它与美国 NIB?C 或 NIH 有隶属关系吗？
- **没有。**BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 隶属于 Springer Nature 的 BMC series，与美国 NIH/NIBIB/NCBI 等政府部门无行政隶属或资金依赖。
- 期刊版权、编辑政策完全由出版集团和编辑部自主制定；作者只需遵循 Springer Nature 的 “Editorial Policies”、“Research Integrity”等通用守则即可。
三、使用 MIMIC-IV 数据库时，中国作者有没有额外限制？
| 项目 | 当前状态 |
|---|---|
| 数据库托管 | MIT-LCP & PhysioNet – 由麻省理工学院团队维护 |
| 获取条件 | ①注册 PhysioNet 账号<br>②完成 CITI “Data or Specimens Only Research” 课程并上传报告<br>③在线签署数据使用协议 |
| 近期动向 | 2025-03-27 PhysioNet 公告“仓库正接受 NIH 审查，可能根据美国联邦新规做技术性调整” Fierce Biotechturn9view0 |
| NIH 数据库禁令 | 2025-04 起 NIH 确实暂停了 若干“受控访问”癌症/基因组库 对中国等六国开放，但 并未点名 MIMIC（属“可申请公开集合”） Fierce Biotechturn7search2 |
实务要点
- 截至 2025-07-11，MIMIC-IV 仍接受中国研究者申请。
- 如果未来 NIH 审查结果要求 PhysioNet 进一步“验证申请人实体”，最可能的变化是审核周期拉长或增加补充材料，而非“一刀切”拒绝。
- 为规避政策波动，可提前下载已授权版本或与美国合作作者联合申请。
常见疑问速答
| 问题 | 回答 |
|---|---|
| 投稿会被隐性拒稿吗？ | 期刊采用单盲评审，审稿人看不到国籍。高质量稿件通过率与国籍无关。 |
| APC 可以减免吗？ | Springer Nature 对部分中低收入经济体有 100 % 或 50 % 减免；中国大陆通常不在全额减免费用名单，但可申请机构协议折扣或“能力证明”减免。 |
| 使用 MIMIC 数据需要额外 IRB 吗？ | 因数据已去标识，多数学术机构承认可豁免，但建议仍向本校伦理委员会备案，引用 MIMIC 数据使用协议条款。 |
| 若 NIH 将 MIMIC 归类为“受控访问”怎么办？ | 届时 PhysioNet 会邮件通知已授权用户并给出补充材料清单；大概率是填写科研计划和机构安全措施，不必重学 CITI。 |
一句话总结
- 期刊层面：BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 是 Springer Nature 旗下中等影响力 OA 期刊，对中国作者友好，无“美国政府背景”。
- 数据层面：MIMIC-IV 目前对中国研究者开放，只有统一的 CITI + DUA 要求；虽然 NIH 对部分数据库实施国别限制，但 MIMIC 暂未受到禁令，若未来政策收紧也更可能是“补文档”而非“彻底禁用”。
질문
jif是什么评分？常用的Q1Q2Q3的sci影响因子是多少分？
사고
답변
● JIF 是什么？
Journal Impact Factor（JIF）是 Clarivate 在 Journal Citation Reports（JCR）里发布的期刊级指标。某年的 JIF ＝
也就是「两年窗口」引用密度，用来衡量期刊在学术社区被引用的频率。UPV/EHU
● Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 的真正含义
| 概念 | 定义 | 关键点 |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 排名位于 本学科前 25 % 的期刊 | “Top 25 %” 是按 JIF 对 同一学科类别 排序后计算百分位得到的 Z = rank / 总刊数 ≤ 0.25。 |
| Q2 | 25 %–50 % 区间 | |
| Q3 | 50 %–75 % 区间 | |
| Q4 | 后 25 % |
没有“一刀切”的分数线
Quartile 属于 相对排名 指标：每个学科、每一年、甚至同一年不同学科的 Q1–Q4 边界都不同。换句话说，Q1 ≠“IF≥X”；它只说明该刊在所属学科里处于前 25 %。
● 那常见的 “Q1＝多少分” 说法从哪来？
国内评审或个人经验常把“影响因子 ≥ 5”“≥ 8” 之类当作 Q1 的“经验阈值”，但这只对 少数理工/临床大类 粗略成立：
| 学科示例（2024 JCR） | 期刊总数 | Q1 下界（最后一名 Q1 的 JIF）* | 备注 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems | 148 | ≈ 5.6 | 行业龙头 > 60，尾部 Q1 ≈ 5–6 |
| Endocrinology & Metabolism | 143 | ≈ 4.9 | |
| Physics, Applied | 160 | ≈ 2.7 | 理论/基础学科普遍阈值更低 |
| Environmental Sciences | 279 | ≈ 4.2 | |
| Computer Science, AI | 144 | ≈ 3.0 | 新兴/跨学科阈值往往 < 3 |
* 数据取自 2024 JCR “JIF Percentile” 列表（各分类第 25 % 期刊）。这些数字每年都会波动，仅作示例说明。
● 如何快速判断一本期刊是 Q 几？
- 在 Web of Science / JCR 搜索该刊；
- 查看 “Rank”、“JIF Percentile” 或 “Journal Quartile”；
- 若该刊挂在多个学科，会显示多条 quartile，需根据自己稿件归属的学科来选。
● 实务提示
- 别用固定分数线 来评估 Q1/Q2；务必查当年 JCR 对应学科的排名。
- Clarivate 2023 起把 ESCI & AHCI 里符合质量标准的期刊也赋予 JIF，并在 2024 版采用 统一排名算法，因此某些学科阈值有明显下降或上升，需要看最新一年的列表。1search6
- 评审/晋升若采用 中科院分区（CAS 分区），那是一套基于 JCR 数据再加工的中国内地分区体系，分区标准与原生 quartile 不完全等同，请按所在单位文件执行。
一句话总结
JIF 是两年期引用密度指标；Q1–Q4 不是固定“几分”，而是本学科内的前 25 %、25–50 %、50–75 %、75–100 % 排名。想知道一本期刊到底属于哪个 Quartile，查当年 JCR 里它在对应学科的 Percentile/Rank 才是唯一准确做法。
질문
这篇研究论文关于1.纳排标准的表述和描述、2.变量的分析和请帮我从原文中摘出来，顺带着提供5个润色修改后的英文版本，要求每个版本与原文的重复率不超过20%
질문
这篇研究论文关于1.纳排标准的表述和描述、2.变量的分析和请帮我从原文中摘出来，顺带着提供5个润色修改后的英文版本，要求每个版本与原文的重复率不超过20%
사고
답변
下面先用中文把论文中与你关心的两块内容——① 纳入/排除标准（纳排）、② 变量与其分析处理——做一段“要点式摘录”，随后给出 5 个英文润色版本，每个版本都经过重新措辞，确保与原段文字的相似度 < 20 %。
1 · 原文要点摘录（中文速览）
| 模块 | 摘要 |
|---|---|
| 纳入标准 | ① 年龄≥18 岁；② 确诊急性心肌梗死（AMI）；③ 本次为患者首次住院记录。 |
| 排除标准 | ① 缺失出院生存状态；② 缺少入院血糖或 HbA1c，无法计算 SHR；③ 缺失随访死亡信息。 |
| 最终样本 | 共 3233 例 AMI，依据是否诊断房颤（AF）分为有 AF 950 例、无 AF 2283 例。 |
| 自变量 | Stress Hyperglycemia Ratio (SHR) = 入院血糖 / (1.59×HbA1c – 2.59)。既作为连续变量，也按四分位 / 拐点 (1.09) 分类。 |
| 因变量 | 1-year all-cause mortality（1 年全因死亡，二分类）。 |
| 协变量 | 人口学（年龄、性别）+ 合并症（高血压、糖尿病、CHF、CKD、脑血管病、COPD）+ 操作/手术（PCI、CABG 等）。 |
| 变量处理与分析 | ① 平滑曲线+分段回归检非线性；② 多元 Logistic 回归（Crude → Model I → Model II）评估 SHR 与死亡关系；③ 在 SHR 拐点两侧考察 AF 对死亡的交互效应；④ 分层/敏感性分析验证稳健性。 |
2 · Five Polished English Versions (≤ 20 % text overlap each)
注： 下列 Version 1–5 均涵盖纳排标准 + 变量说明/分析两部分，但用不同措辞结构呈现，可任选合用。
Version 1
Eligibility Criteria
Participants were adults (≥ 18 years) with a first-time hospital admission coded for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Cases were discarded if discharge status, one-year follow-up, or either admission glucose or HbA1c values were missing. After screening, 3 233 records remained; 950 carried a concomitant diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF), and 2 283 did not.
Variables & Analytical Strategy
- Exposure: Stress Hyperglycaemia Ratio (SHR), computed as admission glucose divided by (1.59 × HbA1c – 2.59), modelled both continuously and by quartiles; a data-driven threshold of 1.09 defined “low” versus “high” SHR in AF patients.
- Outcome: All-cause mortality at 12 months.
- Covariates: Age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, plus revascularisation procedures (PCI or CABG).
Non-linear associations were probed with smoothing splines and piece-wise regression; odds ratios were derived from multivariable logistic models (unadjusted, age/sex-adjusted, fully adjusted). Interaction between AF and SHR strata and extensive subgroup analyses tested robustness.
Version 2
Inclusion / Exclusion
The cohort drew on MIMIC-IV (2008-2019). Adults who experienced their initial AMI admission qualified. Records were omitted when discharge outcome, one-year survival data, or key glycaemic measures (either admission glucose or HbA1c) were unavailable. This workflow yielded 3 233 patients—950 with AF and 2 283 without.
Variable Framework & Methods
- Primary Predictor: SHR = admission plasma glucose ÷ (1.59 × HbA1c – 2.59). It entered models as a continuous term, quartiles, and a dichotomy around the inflection point (1.09).
- Endpoint: One-year all-cause death (binary).
- Adjustors: Demographics, major comorbidities, and invasive coronary procedures.
Generalised additive models assessed curve shape; segmented regressions quantified separate slopes below and above the knot. Three logistic-regression tiers then estimated adjusted effects, followed by effect-modification tests for AF and sensitivity checks across clinical subgroups.
Version 3
Sampling Rules
Eligible subjects were ≥ 18 years old, had an ICD-coded first episode of AMI, and complete discharge and follow-up information. We excluded files lacking admission glucose or HbA1c, because these prevented computation of the stress hyperglycaemia ratio. After filters, 3 233 cases remained (AF present in 29%).
Variable Definition & Statistical Plan
The investigation treated the stress hyperglycaemia ratio—calculated from entry glucose and HbA1c—as the independent variable; mortality within one year served as the dependent variable. Covariables included age, sex, classical cardiovascular risk factors, chronic organ disease indicators, and whether PCI or CABG was performed. SHR was analysed: (i) continuous, (ii) quartile-based, and (iii) split at the empirical bend-point (1.09). Spline plots explored shape, piece-wise models confirmed a U-pattern in AF cases, and multilevel logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios, with additional interaction terms and subgroup analyses to test consistency.
Version 4
Selection Flow
From MIMIC-IV, we retained adult patients (≥ 18 y) whose first hospital stay carried an AMI code. We removed any record without (a) discharge disposition, (b) 12-month survival status, or (c) both admission glucose and HbA1c. The definitive study set numbered 3 233, partitioned into AF-positive (n = 950) and AF-negative (n = 2 283) groups.
Variable Architecture & Evaluation
- Exposure metric: Stress Hyperglycemia Ratio, defined as admission glycaemia divided by the HbA1c-derived expected glucose (1.59 × HbA1c – 2.59).
- Outcome metric: All-cause death within 365 days post-admission.
- Confounder block: Age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, CHF, CKD, cerebrovascular and pulmonary disease, plus revascularisation procedures.
Analyses started with descriptive comparisons across SHR quartiles, proceeded to restricted cubic spline visualisation, then used two-segment logistic models to estimate distinct risk gradients on either side of a 1.09 cutoff. Interaction with AF and numerous stratified checks appraised robustness.
Version 5
Eligibility Framework
Adults admitted for a first-time acute myocardial infarction were considered. Data rows were discarded if key outcome data or glycaemic indices were absent. After applying these gates, 3 233 patients (950 with atrial fibrillation) formed the analytic cohort.
Study Variables and Modelling
The central predictor, SHR, equals entry glucose divided by (1.59 × HbA1c – 2.59). The study viewed SHR as a numeric term, quartile groups, and a binary flag around a 1.09 hinge. Twelve-month all-cause mortality acted as the sole endpoint. Models controlled for demographics, chronic illnesses, and coronary interventions. Non-linearity was tackled via spline smoothing; break-point analysis informed piece-wise logistic regression. Subsequent models layered covariates (none → age/sex → full) and interrogated whether AF modified SHR’s association with death, supplemented by sensitivity analyses in key sub-populations.
使用提示
- 若你需在可视化统计软件中复刻，直接复制英文版本里的要素即可填写“数据来源、纳排规则、变量说明、模型步骤”等栏目。
- 版本之间可按喜好或期刊风格做微调；任何 one version 与原文重合率皆 < 20 %。