
==== Front
Cardiovasc Res
Cardiovasc Res
cardiovascres
Cardiovascular Research
0008-6363
1755-3245
Oxford University Press UK

39027945
10.1093/cvr/cvae142
cvae142
Review
AcademicSubjects/MED00200
Eurheartj/8
Eurheartj/15
Eurheartj/17
Emerging opportunities to target inflammation: myocardial infarction and type 2 diabetes
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0043-7263
Kufazvinei Tafadzwa T J Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK

Chai Jason Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK

Boden Katherine A Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK

Channon Keith M Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8046-1688
Choudhury Robin P Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK

Corresponding author. Tel: +44 1865 234664; fax: +44 1865 2346677, E-mail: robin.choudhury@cardiov.ox.ac.uk
Conflict of interest: RPC has received payment for consultancy from NovoNordisk, Nodthera, and Velakor.

7 2024
19 7 2024
19 7 2024
120 11 12411252
05 12 2023
05 5 2024
13 6 2024
19 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

After myocardial infarction (MI), patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased rate of adverse outcomes, compared to patients without. Diabetes confers a 1.5–2-fold increase in early mortality and, importantly, this discrepancy has been consistent over recent decades, despite advances in treatment and overall survival. Certain assumptions have emerged to explain this increased risk, such as differences in infarct size or coronary artery disease severity. Here, we re-evaluate that evidence and show how contemporary analyses using state-of-the-art characterization tools suggest that the received wisdom tells an incomplete story. Simultaneously, epidemiological and mechanistic biological data suggest additional factors relating to processes of diabetes-related inflammation might play a prominent role. Inflammatory processes after MI mediate injury and repair and are thus a potential therapeutic target. Recent studies have shown how diabetes affects immune cell numbers and drives changes in the bone marrow, leading to pro-inflammatory gene expression and functional suppression of healing and repair. Here, we review and re-evaluate the evidence around adverse prognosis in patients with diabetes after MI, with emphasis on how targeting processes of inflammation presents unexplored, yet valuable opportunities to improve cardiovascular outcomes in this vulnerable patient group.

Diabetes
Myocardial infarction
Inflammation
Trained immunity
Rhodes Trust
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

The global prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) has increased markedly over the past 30 years, having more than doubled from around 200 million in 1990 to estimates of more than half a billion affected by 2025.1 This has important implications for acute myocardial infarction (MI), which is one of the most common causes of death amongst people with DM.2 Not only is the incidence of MI increased in people with DM, but the outcomes after MI are consistently worse. People with DM have higher rates of short and long-term mortality, re-infarction, heart failure (HF), cardiogenic shock, and arrhythmias post-MI.3–8 Treatment advances have greatly decreased the in-hospital mortality from MI, from ∼30% in the 1960s9 to <7% in the contemporary reperfusion era.10 However, despite the improvements in therapy and overall survival, people with DM show a persistent 1.5–2-fold increase in mortality compared to those without.11

This discrepancy in outcome for people with DM after MI is consistent across all management eras. In the era of conservative management, with no attempt at reperfusion therapies, the in-hospital mortality of people with DM following MI was 60.8%, twice that of people without DM.12 After the advent of coronary care units, a study of 832 people found that in the first month after acute MI, 20.2% of people without DM died as compared to 42.0% of people with DM.13 With reperfusion therapies, the GUSTO-1 study found that in people with segment (ST)-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), those with DM had a 30-day mortality of 10.5 vs. 6.2% in those without DM14 and in the GRACE Registry, those with DM and each of STEMI and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) had higher in-hospital mortality (11.7 vs. 6.4% and 6.3 vs. 5.1, respectively).15

In the contemporary era of routine invasive arteriography and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a single-centre study of 12 270 people (4388 with DM) from 2005 to 2013 demonstrated significantly higher 30-day and 1-year mortality rates in those with DM (13.5 vs. 4.3% and 25.7 vs. 12.4%, respectively).16 A sub-study of the PROSPECT II trial showed a two-fold increase in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with DM.17 Similarly, the HORIZONS-AMI study found that at 30 days, the rates of death were higher in newly diagnosed and established DM (4.5 vs. 1.8%).18

A large majority of people with DM have type 2 diabetes (T2D); hence, most studies have been inadequately powered to study the impact of type 1 diabetes (T1D) on prognosis. However, in a nationwide Finnish population at 20 different hospitals, Kerola et al. investigated the case mortality of 1935 people with T1D compared to propensity-matched controls after MI from the years 2005 to 2018. People with T1D had a higher 30-day and 1-year mortality (12.8 vs. 8.5% and 24.3 vs. 16.8%, respectively) and this trend was consistent across different subgroups (with or without HF, with or without ST-elevation, with and without revascularisation).19 Therefore, despite different underlying pathophysiology, both T1D and T2D seem to negatively impact prognosis after MI.

Hyperglycaemia is a cardinal feature in both types of DM and elevated glucose levels on admission in people with acute MI is associated with an adverse prognosis. This has been well documented prior to reperfusion therapies,20 with the use of thrombolytic agents21 and in the contemporary era.22 A meta-analysis, including over 20 000 people with STEMI (23% with DM, but type not specified) treated with primary PCI revealed that admission hyperglycaemia (AH) was associated with higher mortality at both 30 days and long-term follow-up.22 It is important to note that AH is common in people without previously recognized DM, particularly in those with previous MI, multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), and left-anterior descending infarcts.22 Despite these long-established observations, little progress has been made in answering the key questions surrounding hyperglycaemia in acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the chief of which is whether hyperglycaemia is a mediator or marker of adverse outcomes.23 The reader is directed to a recent comprehensive review of this topic.24

Most clinical studies focusing on MI prognosis do not distinguish between T1D and T2D. We can infer from their relative prevalence that most studies include predominantly people with T2D. In this review, unless specified otherwise, we are typically referring to T2D.

2. The effect of DM duration

In cardiovascular risk assessment, it is common to consider (in a binary fashion) whether a given person does or does not have DM. In fact, this type of nominal regard for DM potentially masks heterogeneity in important factors that include: (i) duration of DM, (ii) quality of glycaemic control, and (iii) treatments.

In T2D, duration has been associated with mortality risk. Baviera et al. analysed regional data of nearly 140 000 people hospitalized in Italy with STEMI or NSTEMI, between January 2010 and December 2019.25 People were divided according to DM status and people with DM were further divided into three groups according to the duration of disease: < 5 years, 5–10 years, and > 10 years. In their analysis, which included adjustment for age, in-hospital mortality increased with the duration of DM, with the highest risk in people affected for longer than 10 years when compared to people without DM (OR = 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50–1.69).25 This suggests that the adverse outcomes in T2D might not merely reflect the metabolic status at the time of the MI, but the accrual of consequential pathological features over time. Similarly, metanalysis (n = 25 studies and > 300 000 patients) of outcomes in relation to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) suggest that higher long-term glucose levels track with worse outcomes after ACS in T2D and, significantly, even in those without a nominal diagnosis of T2D.26

3. The effect of DM treatments

The effect that DM has on prognosis after MI might also be modified by specific treatments. In the GRACE Registry, STEMI patients with DM requiring insulin were at increased risk of death, HF, cardiogenic shock, and renal failure during the acute hospitalization period as compared to people on other DM treatments.15 Similarly, analysis of a pooled dataset of four randomized controlled trials including over 7000 participants with acute MI and DM showed that, when compared with people without DM, people with non-insulin-treated DM were at increased risk of cardiovascular death over a follow-up period of just under 2 years (hazard ratio (HR), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13–1.38)27 but the magnitude of risk was even greater in people with insulin-treated DM (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.31–1.69).27 In the SWEDEHEART Registry, people with DM on insulin monotherapy had an increased risk of the composite score of mortality, MI, stroke, and HF over a mean follow-up period of 3.4 years compared to people with DM treated with diet alone (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23–1.42).28 However, while these studies show a consistent pattern this may not necessarily be due to insulin therapy but might reflect confounding factors such as long-standing or poorly controlled DM that is not responsive to oral hypoglycaemic agents.

Metformin is commonly used as a first-line oral hypoglycaemic agent in T2D. In experimental models of MI, evidence suggests that metformin improves cardiovascular function and reduces infarct size.29 An observational study showed that metformin use was associated with lower peak creatine kinase-myocardial band and troponin levels30 but this same effect has not been shown elsewhere.31 In the SWEDEHEART Registry, people on metformin monotherapy had a lower risk of MACE as compared to people with DM treated with diet alone (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85–0.997).28 However, with no large randomized controlled trials to date, there is no definitive evidence to show that metformin has a causal role in improving outcomes post-MI. Similarly, no strong evidence exists concerning sulfonylurea use and its possible effects on MI prognosis. In an observational study of 188 people with MI and DM, Garratt et al. found that after multivariate adjustment, sulfonylurea use was an independent predictor of early mortality (odds ratio, 2.77; P = 0.017).32 However other studies have failed to show this association.33–36

While trials to investigate the effect of established hypoglycaemic agents on MI prognosis do not exist and are unlikely to be conducted, there is growing interest in the newer hypoglycaemic agents, particularly sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors provide cardiovascular outcome benefits in people with T2D. In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, the use of once-daily empagliflozin compared with placebo was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47–0.77) and hospitalization for HF (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57–0.82) in participants with T2D at high cardiovascular risk regardless of reductions in HbA1c.37 Subsequently, randomized clinical trials of other SGLT2 inhibitors including canagliflozin,38,39 dapagliflozin40 and ertugliflozin41 have all been associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization for HF in people with T2D, demonstrating a consistent class-effect.

Furthermore, in the DAPA-HF trial, dapagliflozin was associated with a reduced risk of worsening HF (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59–0.83) and cardiovascular death (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69–0.98) in people with HF and an ejection fraction (EF) of 40% or less.42 As demonstrated in the DELIVER-TRIAL, dapagliflozin's beneficial effects extended to people with HF and a mildly reduced or preserved EF.43 Importantly, in both trials, these benefits were present in the presence or absence of DM.

The mechanisms by which SGLT2 inhibitors exert their cardiovascular effects are not yet understood but potential mechanisms have been reviewed elsewhere.44,45 SGLT2 inhibitors may affect inflammatory processes and the atherosclerotic plaque. In an observational study of people with T2D and multivessel non-obstructive coronary lesions undergoing PCI, SGLT2 inhibitor use was associated with higher values of minimum fibrous cap thickness (FCT), a measure of plaque vulnerability, and lower values of clinical measures of inflammation such as white blood cell count, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα).46

The large body of evidence demonstrating a consistent cardiovascular benefit raises the possibility that SGLT2 inhibitors might also be beneficial in the early period after MI.47 In an observational study of 377 individuals with T2D and acute MI undergoing PCI, current SGLT2 inhibitor use was associated with improved outcomes, regardless of glycaemic control.48 There is also evidence to suggest that in people with T2D, SGLT2 inhibitor use is associated with a lower risk of new-onset arrhythmia after MI.49

More definitively, randomized control trials investigating the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in the acute period after MI have recently been reported. In the EMpagliflozin in acute MYocardial infarction (EMMY) trial, 476 participants with acute MI (including 13% with T2D) were randomized to receive either once-daily empagliflozin or placebo for 26 weeks within 72 h of PCI. Empagliflozin use was associated with a significant reduction in mean N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels and a significant improvement in left-ventricular EF, changes that were apparent in a matter of weeks.50 A post hoc analysis of the EMMY trial showed that empagliflozin did not significantly decrease systemic inflammatory markers such as IL-6, hs-CRP, neutrophil count, leucocyte count, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio when compared with placebo.51 In the DAPA-MI trial, 4017 people (without DM or HF) were enrolled to receive either 10 mg of dapagliflozin or a placebo in addition to standard-of-care therapy within 10 days of an MI.52 There was no difference in the rates of cardiovascular death or HF between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups. However, the trial had a low event rate, likely due to the exclusion of high-risk people and the short follow-up period; hence, it was inadequately powered to study these outcomes.52 The EMPACT-MI trial has recently reported a similar lack of effect of empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in people who had been hospitalized for acute MI, and were at risk of HF, and treated within 14 days after admission. A total of 3260 people were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive a placebo with a median follow-up of 17.9 months. Treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for HF or death from any cause than placebo. Hospitalization for HF or death from any cause occurred in 267 people (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and 298 people (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76–1.06; P = 0.21).53

Even as overall mortality has fallen, the proportionate increased risk associated with T2D has persisted, undiminished,3 emphasizing the need and urgency to understand, firstly, why people with T2D have worse outcomes specific to acute MI, despite contemporary treatment, and secondly how we can modify these outcomes effectively. In this review, we will re-examine some long-standing assumptions about the underlying mechanisms and evaluate emerging data that suggest new opportunities to target risk in this rapidly expanding population (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Potential for diabetes-associated adverse outcome after myocardial infarction. Adverse outcomes have been associated with features attached to the myocardium, microvasculature, and coronary arteries. Further differences in inflammatory processes including leukocyte and platelet activation, myelopoiesis, and HITI may contribute to this prognostic gap. CRP, C-reactive protein; HITI, hyperglycaemia-induced trained immunity; IL-1b, interleukin-1 beta; IL-6, interleukin-6; RAGE, receptor for advanced glycation end-products; ROS, reactive oxygen species.

4. Potential causes of increased early mortality

In considering potential reasons for increased early mortality, it is useful to examine the mechanisms causing death after MI in people with DM. To our knowledge, no study has specifically investigated the mechanism of death in people with DM post-MI or asked whether there are different distributions of particular fatal manifestations compared with people without DM. While mortality is an unambiguous end point, determining the precise mechanism of death in people post-MI is challenging. Autopsy is undertaken in a small minority; consequently, data from death certificates are often inaccurate54 and seem unlikely to be illuminating in understanding the adverse risk of DM.

4.1 Infarct size and EF

Myocardial infarct size in DM has been plausibly proposed to contribute to the adverse prognosis.55,56 People with DM often have less severe or atypical MI symptoms57 that can lead to delays in seeking care, diagnosis, and treatment with the possible consequence of extending infarct size. Infarct size is strongly associated with mortality58 and limiting myocardial injury has been a key clinical priority driving the delivery of effective reperfusion therapies.

However, quantification of infarct size does not provide unambiguous support that people with DM sustain larger MI. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) is the gold standard for non-invasive characterization of myocardial tissue,59 including determining infarct size post-MI. A CMR study of 92 people with MI (including 22 with DM) suggested that those with DM had larger infarct sizes as measured by late-gadolinium enhancement [mean % left ventricle (LV) scar, 25.6% vs. 15.8%],55 however the necessarily observational nature of the study and small sample size leave the significance of this finding uncertain; furthermore, subsequent CMR studies failed to show similar associations.60,61 Eitel et al.60 investigated the relationship between DM and infarct size in 411 STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Those with DM had a three-fold increased risk of MACE, even with similar infarct sizes (% LV scar 18.2 vs. 18.2%). Interestingly, AH was associated with a larger infarct size but this association was weaker in people with established DM.60 In another study of 792 people with STEMI across 8 centres in Germany, Reinstadler et al.61 found no significant difference in the infarct size or myocardial salvage index between people with or without DM. In addition to infarct size, reduced EF is also a predictor of mortality after MI,62 yet EF is comparable between those with and without DM.55,56,61 Therefore, it would seem that neither differences in infarct size nor EF adequately account for the impact of T2D on adverse prognosis after MI.

4.2 Atherosclerotic burden

Patients presenting with ACS typically undergo invasive coronary arteriography, triggered by the index acute presentation. Accordingly, assessment of the severity and extent of atherosclerosis in this context has often been attempted by systematic analysis of the clinically driven angiogram. However, it is also well-recognized that arteriography examines the vessel lumen which limits (i) the quantification of atherosclerosis that is contained within the wall of the artery and (ii) the determination of plaque composition, which in turn affects the plaque's biological properties, notably propensity to erosion or rupture. More detailed plaque characterization can be obtained using intravascular imaging with optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS).

The prevalence of CAD is higher in people with DM,63 and it is widely thought that DM is associated with more severe and extensive CAD. In a comparative study between people with and without DM (n = 167, 47 with DM) presenting with ACS, Niccoli et al.64 described the more prevalent multivessel disease in the DM cohort (68 vs. 42%) with higher quantitative values of angiographically apparent CAD using multiple scoring systems including the Gensini score (18 vs. 11). Similarly, in a sub-study of the PROSPECT I trial, looking at the differences in plaque composition between people with and without DM presenting with ACS, people with DM had longer STs of CAD by IVUS (12.0 vs. 10.7 mm).65 In a different cohort, largely with stable angina, cardiac computerized tomography (CT) also demonstrated a higher number of coronary STs with a mixed plaque in people with DM (1.67 vs. 1.23) but when including all types of plaques (calcified, non-calcified, and mixed), there was no significant difference.66

However, the extent and severity of CAD can be difficult to describe and compare as the modality and method of quantification often varies between studies, and people recruited include those presenting with both stable angina and ACS. In addition, studies requiring invasive measurements using IVUS, OCT, and/or other invasive methods requiring instrumentation of the coronary arteries, may contain an inherent selection bias against those with complex and diffusely stenosed CAD. In the PROSPECT II trial, the mean SYNTAX scores in people with and without DM were not significantly different.17 Hence, although the pattern and severity of CAD have been implicated in the increased mortality in people with DM,67 this is not clearly the case.

PROSPECT II was a prospective natural history study in which the investigators used a combination of near infra-red spectroscopy and IVUS to identify features of non-obstructive plaques that are prone to cause future events.68 The study included 898 people who had a recent MI from 16 different hospitals across Scandinavia, between 2014 and 2017. The investigators found that both high lipid content (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.87–7.70, P = 0.0002) and large plaque burden (OR 5.37, 95% CI 2.42–11.89, P < 0.0001) were independent predictors of non-culprit lesion MACE (defined as the composite of cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, or progressive angina).68 In a sub-study of PROSPECT II, people were stratified according to DM status. Despite contemporary stent technology and pharmacotherapy, the MACE rate was doubled in people with DM (OR 1.94 (95% CI, 1.14–3.30), driven mostly by spontaneous MI in non-culprit lesions and, to a lesser extent, restenosis in culprit lesions. In contrast, MACE in people without DM was driven predominantly by progressive angina. DM was an independent predictor of non-culprit lesion MACE (OR 2.47, CI 1.21–5.04), but did not seem to affect MACE in culprit lesions. Moreover, plaque characteristics (lipid content and plaque burden) in culprit and non-culprit lesions were similar in people with and without DM17, and there were no differences in baseline and residual SYNTAX scores.

Interrogating coronary arteries with OCT, in 250 people presenting with ACS, Sugiyama et al., reported (i) a higher prevalence of lipid-rich plaque and macrophage accumulation in the culprit vessel and (ii) greater maximal lipid arc, thinner FCT and a higher prevalence of thin-fibrous cap atheroma (TCFA) in the non-culprit vessel, in people with DM compared to those without.69 These findings suggest that, at the time of ACS, people with DM have more extensive CAD and more ‘vulnerable’ plaque. However, as highlighted by Ali et al.70, the determination of ‘vulnerable’ plaque by OCT is limited by modest interobserver agreement for cap thickness and lipid arc measurements compounded by the extremely low per-lesion event rates in people with TCFA.

While the burden of CAD at the time of MI may be greater in people with DM, this does not necessarily account for the impact of DM on prognosis after MI. In the GUSTO Angiographic Trial, Woodfield et al.71 compared baseline angiographic differences in 2431 STEMI patients randomized to four different thrombolytic regimens and found that people with DM had a greater frequency of multivessel disease and significantly smaller reference diameters in the infarct-related artery, but after adjustment for multivessel disease and 90-min thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow, DM remained an independent predictor of 30-day mortality. While this may suggest that the burden of CAD does not account for all of the adverse prognosis, it is worth noting that this study used a fairly crude measure—the presence or absence of multivessel disease—and not more informative metrics such as the SYNTAX or Gensini score. Neither did this study investigate the composition of the coronary plaque.

Cumulatively, these studies suggest that differences in plaque extent, morphology, and lesion complexity as quantified and described by current methods such as invasive angiography, intravascular imaging, or cardiac CT are unlikely, on their own, to be sufficient to explain the increased rate of MACE in people with DM. In particular, the findings from the PROSPECT II trial sub-study suggest that additional pathophysiological mechanisms in people with DM are not dependent on plaque extent or morphology, but somehow extend their influence to cause acute MI in lesions that are remote from the index culprit lesion.

4.3 Myocardial perfusion and coronary microvascular dysfunction

Effective, timely reperfusion is a well-established determinant of outcomes in acute MI and requires both patency of the epicardial vessel and competence of the microvasculature. Even where primary PCI restores the former, coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) can delay or prevent reperfusion leading to persistent ischaemia and infarction. The coronary microcirculation consists of smaller arteries and arterioles <500 μm in diameter and is the main site for regulating myocardial perfusion.72 Although these vessels are not visible by current imaging modalities including invasive arteriography, their function can be assessed by physiological measurements. An abnormal coronary flow reserve (CFR) or equivalent indices such as myocardial flow reserve (MFR), which measure the ratio of myocardial blood flow at stress or maximal hyperaemia to that during rest provides a quantitative definition of CMD in the absence of epicardial stenoses.

Importantly, CMD impacts prognosis after MI; Kelshiker et al.73 have shown in their systematic review of CFR and cardiovascular outcomes that an abnormal CFR is a predictor of MACE, in both acute and chronic coronary syndromes. Studies specifically comparing people with and without DM have been few and mostly in the context of people with stable symptoms and not in acute MI.

In a single-centre study using Positron Emission Tomography in people with and without DM (n = 6019), an abnormal MFR was more prevalent in people with DM but both factors were independent predictors of MACE.74 Similarly, in a study using CMR to measure CFR by determining coronary sinus flow at rest and stress, in people with DM (n = 309), CFR < 2 was a predictor of MACE.75 These data have been replicated in invasive angiographic measures to determine CFR and also microcirculatory resistance specific indices such as Index of Microcirculatory Resistance, Hyperaemic Microvascular Resistance, and Microvascular Resistance Reserve,76–79 demonstrating that people with DM, mostly in the context of stable angina, are more likely to have a lower CFR (<2) and although less consistent, a high microcirculatory resistance index. Interestingly, CMD measured by stress echocardiography, prior to evidence of significant epicardial stenosis in a study of 144 people with T2D predicted death and non-fatal MI.80

Microvascular obstruction (MVO) in people with DM is also more prevalent and could plausibly contribute to excess mortality; a pooled analysis of STEMI patients from seven primary PCI randomized clinical trials found that MVO measured within 7 days of the acute event was strongly associated with mortality and hospitalization for HF.81 Following PCI, people with DM more frequently have incomplete ST resolution,82 reduced myocardial blush grade,83 and MVO as measured by CMR.81,82,84 It may be expected that MVO affects prognosis by increasing infarct size, but MVO is an independent predictor of adverse outcomes, even after adjustment for infarct size.81

Both invasive and non-invasive methods have shown that people with DM tend to have CMD, as measured by CFR which is an independent predictor of MACE, and are more likely to have MVO following STEMI. In the context of poorer outcomes in people with DM following MI, these findings could reflect (i) preceding coronary microvascular disease that impairs reperfusion or repair and/or (ii) aggravated functional microvascular dysfunction or obstruction during AMI that impairs myocardial reperfusion.

4.4 Diabetic cardiomyopathy

DM confers a two- to four-fold increased risk of HF85,86 and this is commonly attributed to ‘diabetic cardiomyopathy', which refers to abnormal myocardial structure and function in the absence of CAD, hypertension, and significant valvular disease in individuals with DM.87 An increased risk of HF is also apparent after MI, for example in the SWEDEHEART registry, where DM increased the risk of post-MI HF by 30%.88

In the diabetic heart, structural changes include cardiac fibrosis, cardiac hypertrophy/ remodelling, and microvascular dysfunction.89 A CMR study revealed that out of 107 people with DM with no clinical evidence of a previous MI, 30 (28%), had a myocardial scar as evidenced by late-gadolinium enhancement.90 Although the type of DM was not specified, the average age of the participants (59 ± 13) suggests that most were likely to have T2D.90 The high frequency of myocardial scar in this cohort suggests that either people with T2D have silent infarcts or that T2D independently causes fibrosis. Various mechanisms including fibroblast proliferation, neurohumoral activation, pro-inflammatory cytokine production, oxidative stress, increased myocardial transforming growth factor beta expression, and activation of the advanced glycation end products (AGE)/receptor for AGE (RAGE) axis may contribute to fibrosis in DM, as reviewed in detail elsewhere.91 Cardiac remodelling is often observed in people with DM92,93 and is most likely under-detected because only a few patients with DM undergo CMR imaging.

Hence, potentially diverse manifestations of a diabetic cardiomyopathy may explain why people with DM are more susceptible to the effects of an MI, either by impacting the infarcted area itself or through adverse effects on the remote myocardium, by impairing its ability to compensate for the damage to the infarcted muscle.

4.5 The prognostic effect of sex

Numerous studies have demonstrated that following MI, females tend to experience worse outcomes compared to males, including higher rates of hospitalization,94 HF88,95 short-term,96–100 and long-term mortality.101,102 However, this prognostic gap tends to diminish or disappear when confounding variables including age, risk factors, and co-morbidities are considered.96,99,102,103 Furthermore, females are less likely to receive guideline-approved therapies after MI in a timely manner,98–100 suggesting that this prognostic gap is not wholly explained by biological sex differences.

Female patients with DM may represent an extremely vulnerable patient group. An observational study investigated the rates of death and MI at 1 year among 17 154 individuals undergoing PCI, stratified by sex and DM status. Female patients with DM were at the highest risk of death and MI. Remarkably, female patients without DM exhibited a similar risk of experiencing adverse events as compared to male patients with DM. These findings persisted after multivariate adjustment.104 Evidence suggests that young females with DM are at particularly high-risk of long-term mortality after MI.101,105 However, with regards to short-term mortality, a previous study showed that amongst 48 878 individuals between the ages of 18 and 45 with DM and acute MI, females with DM were not at higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared to men after adjusting for confounders.106 Females are underrepresented in clinical studies and many knowledge gaps remain in understanding the influence of sex on MI prognosis, including its interaction with DM.

5. Emerging possibilities to identify and target inflammation

In the preceding sections, we have attempted to evaluate the contributions to adverse prognosis in T2D from clinically accessible assessments after MI. The situation is complex with potential contributions from inter-related factors, the individual contributions of which are difficult to tease out.

Furthermore, a large body of evidence points towards differential cellular and molecular responses in the context of DM. Some of these, such as oxidative stress, angiogenesis and altered cellular energetics are well-described and we will recap them briefly. We will focus in detail on emerging processes of inflammation and notably the direct effects of DM on immune cell function and their potential to unlock new possibilities for patient characterization and directed treatments.

After MI, excessive generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) plays a crucial role in mediating ischaemic/reperfusion injury by directly damaging DNA, lipids, proteins, and mitochondria leading to increased cardiomyocyte death.107 ROS can also trigger inflammatory processes, for example by activating the nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain, leucine-rich repeat- and pyrin domain-containing protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome,108 the Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway109 and the nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κΒ) pathway.110 Patients with DM exhibit heightened NADPH oxidase activity and impaired endothelial nitric oxide synthase function in their blood vessels, leading to elevated production of ROS.111 Elevated levels of ROS are also observed in the myocardium of people with DM.112

Angiogenesis plays a crucial role in facilitating the repair of the injured myocardium by providing oxygen and nutrients to limit ischaemic damage.113 New vessel formation is required for the recruitment of leucocytes—essential mediators of injury and repair.113 Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF1-α) serves as a pivotal regulator of angiogenesis and increased expression of HIF1-α in cardiomyocytes has been shown to enhance cardiac function and reduce infarct size in a mouse model of MI.114 It is well-established that hyperglycaemia impairs the stabilization of HIF1-α in endothelial cells.115 It has also been previously shown that ventricular biopsies of people with T2D exhibit decreased expression of HIF1-α and vascular endothelial growth factor when compared to people without DM.116 Other pathways relating to novel angiogenic proteins,117 defective endothelial progenitor cells,118 and vascular nitric oxide resistance119 may all contribute to impair angiogenesis in people with T2D post-MI. The reader is directed to reviews of this topic.120,121

Altered myocardial energetics post-MI may impact prognosis. Normally the heart uses a diverse range of substrates including free fatty acids, glucose, amino acids, and ketones to generate adenosine triphosphate.122 In the ischaemic heart, glucose is preferentially used as a substrate. However, in T2D, the heart ceases to be metabolically flexible. Hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance decrease glucose utilization and increase free fatty acid intake by the myocardium leading to the accumulation of toxic lipid metabolites and ROS and eventually myocardial dysfunction.122

However, additional previously overlooked factors relating to processes of inflammation, appear increasingly relevant and plausible. Circulating markers of inflammation, most notably high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, have been associated with adverse outcomes in a variety of clinical contexts.123–126 In the CARE trial,127 evidence of systemic inflammation, as measured by elevated CRP and serum amyloid A (SAA), was associated with an increased risk of recurrent coronary events after MI, but with a higher proportion of events in people with T2D. Indeed CRP and SAA have long been recognized to be higher in people with T2D.128 More recently, a collaborative analysis of three randomized clinical trials by Ridker et al.129 investigated the association between cardiovascular events and death with each of low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol and hs-CRP, in people in whom LDL-cholesterol had been intensively lowered, achieving contemporary standards. Amongst 31 245 people from three randomized clinical trials (PROMINENT, REDUCE-IT, and STRENGTH) elevated hs-CRP showed a stronger association with future events than did ‘on-treatment’ LDL-cholesterol.129 Importantly, the majority of people (76%) in this analysis had T2D, reinforcing the notion that processes of inflammation are important in this population.

Together, these studies suggest that processes of inflammation might drive worse outcomes in people with DM, who present with CAD. However, the use of the blanket term ‘inflammation’ is mechanistically uninformative. CRP, which is synthesized and released by the liver, represents the integrated downstream effects of several post-infarct-related inflammatory processes and is not sufficiently specific to describe complex molecular and cellular inflammatory processes.130 Functionally relevant information on specific molecular pathway activation, stage of involvement of complementary (or competing) cell types, status of acute inflammation vs. resolution, and even the precise loci of inflammation are currently not well-defined in MI. As a result, the optimal timing and nature of interventions to target potentially tractable processes of inflammation are unknown. Furthermore, targeting processes of inflammation requires consideration of sex differences in the immune response to MI.131 Hence, we will direct our focus to the processes of inflammation that are mechanistically important, therapeutically tractable, and subject to potential perturbation in people with DM.

6. Inflammation-related processes after MI

MI triggers local and systemic inflammatory processes. In the myocardium, the post-infarct inflammatory response can be thought of in three phases: the alarm phase, the leucocyte mobilization phase, and the resolution phase.132

In the alarm phase, dead cardiomyocytes and other cells release signals known as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) which include high mobility group protein B1,133 heat-shock proteins,134 S100A8/A9,135 and fibronectin.136 DAMPs bind to pattern-recognition receptors such as Toll-like receptors, nucleotide oligomerization domain–like receptors, and RAGE to activate innate immune pathways.137 Pro-inflammatory signalling pathways that can be activated within innate immune cells include, but are not limited to (NLRP3)/IL-1β,138 target lesson revascularization-4/NFκB,139 and the JAK-STAT signalling pathway140

In the leucocyte mobilization phase, leucocytes rapidly infiltrate the ischaemic myocardium.141 Neutrophils are the first cells to respond142 followed by pro-inflammatory monocytes143 (which subsequently differentiate into macrophages) to clear dead cardiomyocytes and other necrotic tissue. We have previously shown how endothelial cell–derived extracellular vesicles mobilize neutrophils and monocytes to the infarcted myocardium144,145 and how the transcriptomes of these cells are altered in the blood prior to their recruitment to the injured myocardium.144,146 Acute MI also mobilizes leucocytes to the myocardium remote to the ischaemic area.147

In the resolution phase, pro-inflammatory processes are suppressed. Macrophages transition to an anti-inflammatory, pro-resolving (M2) phenotype, and neutrophils are essential in mediating this process.148 In this phase, macrophage function switches from phagocytosis, proteolysis, and extracellular matrix degradation to angiogenesis and granulation tissue formation.149

Systemically, MI increases plasma concentrations of the pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-α150 and IL-6.151 It is also worth noting that experimental MI accelerates atherosclerosis by increasing the recruitment of myeloid cells to the plaque.152

6.1 Potential therapeutic targets

Processes of inflammation are potential therapeutic targets. In experimental models of MI, inhibiting the recruitment of pro-inflammatory monocytes to the injured myocardium reduces infarct size.153–155 This has led to the notion that an exaggerated or prolonged pro-inflammatory response exacerbates injury and minimizes repair, leading to adverse ventricular remodelling.149,156 However, non-targeted inhibition post-MI can be detrimental. Corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories haven been previously shown to be associated with ventricular wall rupture after MI.157,158 As previously highlighted, macrophages transition to become agents of healing, and it is understandable that non-targeted inhibition impairs healing/repair.

Targeted inhibition of inflammatory pathways in the context of CAD has shown promising results in recent years. The CANTOS trial in 2017 demonstrated a proof-of-concept that targeting an inflammatory pathway; i.e. IL-1β with a monoclonal antibody, canakinumab, can modify disease outcomes in people with known CAD and hs-CRP of at least 2 mg/L,159 although the effect size was modest. Subsequently, IL-6, a more downstream cytokine, is currently being investigated as a potential therapeutic target. In ASSAIL-MI, a Phase 2 randomized clinical trial of 199 individuals, targeting IL-6 with tocilizumab significantly increased the myocardial salvage index in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI within 6 h of chest pain.160 In RESCUE, a Phase 2 randomized clinical trial, Ziltivekimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-6, demonstrated a significant reduction in CRP levels, without affecting the level of cholesterol, in a cohort of people with impaired renal function [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 10–60 mL/min per 1.73 m2] and hs-CRP of at least 2 mg/L.161 A Phase 3 trial, ZEUS, investigating clinical outcomes has recently completed recruitment. A potentially even more relevant Phase 3 trial, ARTEMIS, will examine the effects of ziltivekimab started as early as possible after an invasive procedure, and latest within 36 h of hospitalization for STEMI, and latest within 48 h of hospitalization (time 0) for NSTEMI.

Both IL-1β and IL-6 are active cytokines that are implicated in causal pathways of CAD and its complications and are therefore potential therapeutic targets. This is in contrast to C-reactive protein, which is an acute phase protein made in the liver in response to IL-6, but without a causative role in disease pathogenesis; it is merely a marker. Importantly, targeted inhibition of the causal pathways should provide a better mechanistic understanding of inflammatory processes that drive the progression of atherosclerosis and help characterize and define patient groups who are likely to benefit most. In the following sections, we will highlight how emerging data suggest that processes of inflammation are of particular relevance to people with T2D, providing new opportunities for diagnostic stratification/characterization, monitoring, and treatment.

7. DM and processes of inflammation

There is a growing interest in understanding how metabolic disorders, such as DM, affect immune cell function. Much remains to be understood, but current evidence suggests important possibilities in relation to how DM could aggravate processes of inflammation after MI, and how this could mediate adverse outcomes.

In animal models, hyperglycaemia drives myelopoiesis,162 which seems to be exacerbated by patterns of transient intermittent hyperglycaemia.163,164 Recently, we have identified a new phenomenon of Hyperglycaemia-Induced Trained Immunity (HITI) in which hyperglycaemia exacerbates classical inflammation and suppresses repair. Hyperglycaemia leads to epigenetic changes in haematopoietic stem cells that prime their progeny away from the M2 reparative phenotype towards the M1 pro-inflammatory phenotype. These modifications persist despite restoration to physiological levels of glucose.165 While this (M1/M2) dichotomy is an oversimplification, our findings suggest that HITI might influence processes of inflammation after MI and lead to changes that are not corrected by lowering glucose. In Figure 2, we suggest how DM may affect the inflammatory process in macrophages after MI.

Figure 2 Cellular processes of inflammation relevant to acute MI in diabetes. After acute myocardial infarction (AMI), damaged cardiomyocytes release damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), which activate pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) on macrophages including Toll-like Receptors (TLR) 2 and 4 and the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE). This activation triggers nuclear factor kappa B (NFκB) signalling, subsequently activating the NOD-, LRR- and pyrin domain-containing protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) contribute to NLRP3 inflammasome activation, culminating in the production of interleukin-1 beta (IL-1b). Furthermore, injured cardiomyocytes stimulate T cells to produce interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), which in turn activates the Janus kinase/signal-transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway within macrophages, leading to the production of interleukin-6 (IL-6). Increased glucose entry into the cell induces metabolic reprogramming and modifies epigenetic enzymes such as histone methyltransferases (HMT), histone demethylases (HDM), histone acetyltransferases (HAT), and histone deacetylases (HDAC). This leads to key histone modifications, including histone 3 lysine 4 trimethylation (H3K4me3) and histone 3 lysine 27 acetylation (H3K27ac). These modifications alter chromatin accessibility at the IL-6 promoter, 'holding it open' to facilitate active transcription. Additionally, these epigenetic marks enhance NFκB activity. Moreover, these epigenetic changes inhibit anti-inflammatory pathways within macrophages, such as interleukin 4 (IL-4) signalling, consequently decreasing the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin 10 (IL-10). Ultimately, hyperglycaemia skews macrophage function away from an M2 anti-inflammatory phenotype towards a pro-inflammatory M1 phenotype. a-KG, a-ketoglutarate; GLUT1, glucose transporter-1; HMGB1, high mobility group protein B1; HSP, heat-shock proteins; IFNGR, interferon-gamma receptor; IL-4R, interleukin-4 receptor. Created with BioRender.com.

As in peripheral wound healing, DM and HITI may impair infarct healing in the heart. Efficient wound healing requires the sequential infiltration of pro-inflammatory monocytes in the inflammatory phase followed by anti-inflammatory monocytes in the reparative phase. However, in wounds from diabetic mice, Ly6CHi monocytes (i) display a ‘second influx’ and infiltrate the wound in the reparative phase of wound healing and (ii) delay their transition to Ly6CLo monocytes.166 A similar, yet unexplored, process could be occurring in the heart. As previously mentioned, hyperglycaemia leads to a bias away from the M2 reparative phenotype. The infiltration of pro-inflammatory monocytes to the ischaemic myocardium could impair the resolution of inflammation and exacerbate the amount of injury. If these are pathologically important processes, one might expect infarct size to be larger in people with DM, but that was not apparent in the CMR studies discussed above, (which showed no significant difference in infarct size measured in the acute phase)60,61 though it is known that infarct size only reaches its final size after approximately 30 days.167 Hence, it is possible that infarct size was measured too early before it was possible to detect differences, especially if HITI delays infarct healing and inflammation resolution. Furthermore, current imaging techniques do not have the resolution to detect potentially important histological differences in the infarct healing process.

These diabetes-related effects on haematopoiesis and leucocyte function seem likely to influence the nature of leucocytes that are recruited to the remote myocardium. In human hearts, the presence of CCR2+ macrophages (derived from circulating monocytes) is associated with worse ventricular function and adverse remodelling.168 Monocytes biased towards pro-inflammatory processes might be recruited not only to the infarct zone, but also to the remote myocardium, which could partially explain why people with DM are more likely to develop HF after MI.169,170 Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that inflammatory cells can be a determinant of arrhythmia after MI.171

Systemically, hyperglycaemia increases the production of inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-18)172 and acute phase proteins.173 As previously mentioned, hs-CRP is strongly associated with residual risk of cardiovascular events, notably in people with DM.129 CRP production is driven by IL-6.174

Inhibition of IL-1β with the monoclonal antibody canakinumab lowers hs-CRP specifically in people with DM175 but subgroup analysis of the CANTOS trial did not show selective benefits for those with a diagnosis of T2D.176

Plausibly, and for the reasons discussed above, the presence of ‘nominal’ DM may be insufficiently specific to identify a subgroup of people with DM who might benefit from targeting active inflammation. At a cellular level, hyperglycaemia drives glycolysis which, in turn, leads to post-translational modifications in specific histones. Significantly these histone modifications alter chromatin accessibility at the IL-6 promoter, which is a cardinal feature of HITI.165,177 Effectively the promoter is ‘held open’ rendering the IL-6 gene primed for active transcription. Accordingly, people in whom T2D had led to HITI are likely to (i) have higher levels of IL-6 and hs-CRP and (ii) show particular therapeutic benefit to IL-6 inhibition.

8. Conclusions and future implications

The global prevalence of T2D is increasing rapidly with adverse implications for cardiovascular disease. Despite overall improvements in outcomes after MI, people with T2D have had persistently worse outcomes with higher rates of complications, re-infarction, and death. The contributory factors are complex and multiple and extend far beyond ‘anatomical’ considerations of the extent of angiographically apparent CAD and or myocardial infarct size. In particular, emerging strands of evidence point to a role for processes of inflammation and impaired inflammation resolution in T2D.

Epidemiological studies show that in people with T2D, in whom LDL-cholesterol is treated to contemporary targets, elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein is a superior predictor of outcome (compared with LDL-cholesterol). Recent data have shown a role for hyperglycaemia-driven myelopoiesis and epigenetically re-programmed bone marrow with adverse consequences of innate immune function. These alterations in innate immune function are of likely relevance to both atherosclerosis progression and response to acute MI.

All people with ‘diabetes’ are not susceptible to the same extent. The emerging complexity strongly suggests that in future, people will benefit from the description of disease processes that extend beyond the mere nominal diagnosis ‘diabetes’. In particular, better understanding and characterization of consequences for processes of inflammation and disordered homeostasis are likely to open new opportunities to target complications and improve cardiovascular outcomes of people with DM.

Funding

T.T.J.K. is supported by a scholarship from the Rhodes Trust. R.P.C. and K.M.C. receive support from The MeRIAD (Metabolite-Related Inflammation and Disease Consortium) NovoNordisk Foundation (NNF15CC0018486 and NNF20SA0064144); British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Oxford (RE/13/1/30181 and RE/18/3/34214) and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. K.A.B. is supported by the Kusuma Trust. J.C. is supported by British Heart Foundation.
==== Refs
References

1 Lin X , XuY, PanX, XuJ, DingY, SunX, SongX, RenY, ShanP-F. Global, regional, and national burden and trend of diabetes in 195 countries and territories: an analysis from 1990 to 2025. Sci Rep 2020;10 :14790.32901098
2 Rao Kondapally Seshasai S , KaptogeS, ThompsonA, Di AngelantonioE, GaoP, SarwarN, WhincupPH, MukamalKJ, GillumRF, HolmeI, NjølstadI, FletcherA, NilssonP, LewingtonS, CollinsR, GudnasonV, ThompsonSG, SattarN, SelvinE, HuFB, DaneshJ; Emerging risk factors collaboration. Diabetes mellitus, fasting glucose, and risk of cause-specific death. N Engl J Med 2011;364 :829–841.21366474
3 Bauters C , LemesleG, de GrooteP, LamblinN. A systematic review and meta-regression of temporal trends in the excess mortality associated with diabetes mellitus after myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol 2016;217 :109–121.27179900
4 Simek S , MotovskaZ, HlinomazO, KalaP, HromadkaM, KnotJ, VarvarovskyI, DusekJ, RokytaR, TousekF, SvobodaM, VodzinskaA, MrozekJ, JarkovskyJ; On behalf of the prague-study group. The effect of diabetes on prognosis following myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty and potent antiplatelet therapy. J Clin Med 2020;9 :2555.32781780
5 Ritsinger V , NyströmT, SalehN, LagerqvistB, NorhammarA. Heart failure is a common complication after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes: a nationwide study in the SWEDEHEART registry. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2020;27 :1890–1901.32019365
6 Echouffo-Tcheugui JB , KolteD, KheraS, AronowHD, AbbottJD, BhattDL, FonarowGC. Diabetes mellitus and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med 2018;131 :778–86.e1.29596788
7 Faxén J , JernbergT, HollenbergJ, GadlerF, HerlitzJ, SzummerK. Incidence and predictors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest within 90 days after myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76 :2926–2936.33334420
8 Galasso G , De AngelisE, SilverioA, Di MaioM, CancroFP, EspositoL, BellinoM, ScudieroF, DamatoA, ParodiG, VecchioneC. Predictors of recurrent ischemic events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2021;159 :44–51.34503819
9 de Vreede JJM , GorgelsAPM, VerstraatenGMP, VermeerF, DassenWRM, WellensHJJ. Did prognosis after acute myocardial infarction change during the past 30 years? A meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18 :698–706.1831213
10 McNamara RL , KennedyKF, CohenDJ, DiercksDB, MoscucciM, RameeS, WangTY, ConnollyT, SpertusJA. Predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68 :626–635.27491907
11 Milazzo V , CosentinoN, GenoveseS, CampodonicoJ, MazzaM, De MetrioM, MarenziG. Diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction: impact on short and long-term mortality. In: IslamMS (ed.), Diabetes: from research to clinical practice: volume 4. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p153–169.
12 Bradley RF , BryfogleJW. Survival of diabetic patients after myocardial infarction. Am J Med 1956;20 :207–216.13282941
13 Rytter L , TroelsenS, Beck-NielsenH. Prevalence and mortality of acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 1985;8 :230–234.4006657
14 Mak KH , MoliternoDJ, GrangerCB, MillerDP, WhiteHD, WilcoxRG, CaliffRM, TopolEJ. Influence of diabetes mellitus on clinical outcome in the thrombolytic era of acute myocardial infarction. GUSTO-I Investigators. Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30 :171–179.9207639
15 Franklin K , GoldbergRJ, SpencerF, KleinW, BudajA, BriegerD, MarreM, StegPG, GowdaN, GoreJM; GRACE Investigators. Implications of diabetes in patients with acute coronary syndromes: the global registry of acute coronary events. Arch Intern Med 2004;164 :1457–1463.15249356
16 Skoda R , NemesA, BárcziG, VágóH, RuzsaZ, ÉdesIF, OláhA, KosztinA, DinyaE, MerkelyB, BeckerD. Survival of myocardial infarction patients with diabetes mellitus at the invasive era (results from the városmajor myocardial infarction registry). J Clin Med 2023;12 :917.36769565
17 Gyldenkerne C , MaengM, Kjøller-HansenL, MaeharaA, ZhouZ, Ben-YehudaO, Erik BøtkerH, EngstrømT, MatsumuraM, MintzGS, FröbertO, PerssonJ, WisethR, LarsenAI, JensenLO, NordrehaugJE, BleieØ, OmerovicE, HeldC, JamesSK, AliZA, RosenHC, StoneGW, ErlingeD. Coronary artery lesion lipid content and plaque burden in diabetic and nondiabetic patients: PROSPECT II. Circulation 2023;147 :469–481.36524476
18 Brener SJ , MehranR, DresslerO, CristeaE, StoneGW. Diabetes mellitus, myocardial reperfusion, and outcome in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty (from HORIZONS AMI). Am J Cardiol 2012;109 :1111–1116.22244381
19 Kerola AM , JuonalaM, PalomäkiA, SembAG, RautavaP, KytöV. Case fatality of patients with type 1 diabetes after myocardial infarction. Diabetes Care 2022;45 :1657–1665.35679070
20 Ravid M , BerkowiczM, SoharE. Hyperglycemia during acute myocardial infarction: a six-year follow-up study. JAMA 1975;233 :807–809.1173880
21 Wahab NN , CowdenEA, PearceNJ, GardnerMJ, MerryH, CoxJL; ICONS Investigators. Is blood glucose an independent predictor of mortality in acute myocardial infarction in the thrombolytic era? J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40 :1748–1754.12446057
22 Singh K , HibbertB, SinghB, CarsonK, PremaratneM, Le MayM, ChongA-Y, ArstallM, SoDerek. Meta-analysis of admission hyperglycaemia in acute myocardial infarction patients treated with primary angioplasty: a cause or a marker of mortality? Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2015;1 :220–228.27532445
23 Deedwania P , KosiborodM, BarrettE, CerielloA, IsleyW, MazzoneT, RaskinP. Hyperglycemia and acute coronary syndrome: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Diabetes Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. Circulation 2008;117 :1610–1619.18299505
24 Esdaile H , HillN, MayetJ, OliverN. Glycaemic control in people with diabetes following acute myocardial infarction. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2023;199 :110644.36997029
25 Baviera M , GenoveseS, ColacioppoP, CosentinoN, ForestaA, TettamantiM, FortinoI, RoncaglioniMC, MarenziG. Diabetes mellitus duration and mortality in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2022;21 :223.36309742
26 Pan W , LuH, LianB, LiaoP, GuoL, ZhangM. Prognostic value of HbA1c for in-hospital and short-term mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2019;18 :169.31829179
27 Rossello X , FerreiraJP, McMurrayJJ, AguilarD, PfefferMA, PittB, DicksteinK, GirerdN, RossignolP, ZannadF; High-risk myocardial infarction database initiative. Editor's choice-impact of insulin-treated diabetes on cardiovascular outcomes following high-risk myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2019;8 :231–241.30259764
28 Ritsinger V , LagerqvistB, LundmanP, HagströmE, NorhammarA. Diabetes, metformin and glucose lowering therapies after myocardial infarction: insights from the SWEDEHEART registry. Diab Vasc Dis Res 2020;17 :1479164120973676.
29 Hesen NA , RiksenNP, AaldersB, BrouwerMAE, Ritskes-HoitingaM, El MessaoudiS, WeverKE. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the protective effects of metformin in experimental myocardial infarction. PLoS One 2017;12 :e0183664.28832637
30 Lexis CPH , WieringaWG, HiemstraB, van DeursenVM, LipsicE, van der HarstP, van VeldhuisenDJ, van der HorstICC. Chronic metformin treatment is associated with reduced myocardial infarct size in diabetic patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2014;28 :163–171.24292206
31 Basnet S , KozikowskiA, MakaryusAN, PekmezarisR, ZeltserR, AkermanM, LesserM, Wolf-KleinG. Metformin and myocardial injury in patients with diabetes and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a propensity score matched analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2015;4 :e002314.26494519
32 Garratt KN , BradyPA, HassingerNL, GrillDE, TerzicA, HolmesDRJr. Sulfonylurea drugs increase early mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus after direct angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33 :119–124.9935017
33 Halkin A , RothA, JonasM, BeharS. Sulfonylureas are not associated with increased mortality in diabetics treated with thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2001;12 :177–184.11729370
34 Klamann A , SarfertP, LaunhardtV, SchulteG, SchmiegelWH, NauckMA. Myocardial infarction in diabetic vs non-diabetic subjects. Survival and infarct size following therapy with sulfonylureas (glibenclamide). Eur Heart J 2000;21 :220–229.10639304
35 Zeller M , DanchinN, SimonD, VahanianA, LorgisL, CottinY, BerlandJ, GueretP, WyartP, DeturckR, TaboneX, MachecourtJ, LeclercqF, DrouetE, MulakG, BatailleV, CambouJ-P, FerrieresJ, SimonT; French registry of acute st-elevation and non-st-elevation myocardial infarction investigators. Impact of type of preadmission sulfonylureas on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010;95 :4993–5002.20702526
36 Danchin N , CharpentierG, LedruF, VaurL, GuéretP, HananiaG, BlanchardD, LablancheJ-M, GenèsN, CambouJ-P. Role of previous treatment with sulfonylureas in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from a nationwide French registry. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2005;21 :143–149.15386810
37 Zinman B , WannerC, LachinJM, FitchettD, BluhmkiE, HantelS, MattheusM, DevinsT, JohansenOE, WoerleHJ, BroedlUC, InzucchiSE; EMPA-REG OUTCOME investigators. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;373 :2117–2128.26378978
38 Neal B , PerkovicV, MahaffeyKW, de ZeeuwD, FulcherG, EronduN, ShawW, LawG, DesaiM, MatthewsDR; CANVAS Program Collaborative Group. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2017;377 :644–657.28605608
39 Perkovic V , JardineMJ, NealB, BompointS, HeerspinkHJL, CharytanDM, EdwardsR, AgarwalR, BakrisG, BullS, CannonCP, CapuanoG, ChuP-L, de ZeeuwD, GreeneT, LevinA, PollockC, WheelerDC, YavinY, ZhangH, ZinmanB, MeiningerG, BrennerBM, MahaffeyKW; CREDENCE Trial Investigators. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2019;380 :2295–2306.30990260
40 Wiviott SD , RazI, BonacaMP, MosenzonO, KatoET, CahnA, SilvermanMG, ZelnikerA, KuderJF, MurphySA, BhattDL, LeiterLA., McGuireDK, WildingJPH, RuffCT, Gause-NilssonIAM, FredrikssonM, JohanssonPA, LangkildeA-M, SabatineMS; DECLARE–TIMI 58 Investigators. Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;380 :347–357.30415602
41 Cannon CP , PratleyR, Dagogo-JackS, MancusoJ, HuyckS, MasiukiewiczU, CharbonnelB, FrederichR, GalloS, CosentinoF, ShihWJ, GantzI, TerraSG, CherneyDZI, McGuireDK; VERTIS CV Investigators. Cardiovascular outcomes with ertugliflozin in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2020;383 :1425–1435.32966714
42 McMurray JJV , SolomonSD, InzucchiSE, KøberL, KosiborodMN, MartinezFA, PonikowskiP, SabatineMS, AnandIS, BělohlávekJ, BöhmM, ChiangC-E, ChopraVK, de BoerRA, DesaiAS, DiezM, DrozdzJ, DukátA, GeJ, HowlettJG, KatovaT, KitakazeM, LjungmanCEA, MerkelyB, NicolauJC, O'MearaE, PetrieMC, VinhPN, SchouM, TereshchenkoS, VermaS, HeldC, DeMetsDL, DochertyKF, JhundPS, BengtssonO, SjöstrandM, LangkildeA-M; DAPA-HF Trial Committees and Investigators. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2019;381 :1995–2008.31535829
43 Solomon SD , McMurrayJJV, ClaggettB, de BoerRA, DeMetsD, HernandezAF, InzucchiSE, KosiborodMN, LamCSP, MartinezF, ShahSJ, DesaiAS, JhundPS, BelohlavekJ, ChiangC-E, BorleffsCJW, Comin-ColetJ, DobreanuD, DrozdzJ, FangJC, Alcocer-GambaMA, Al HabeebW, HanY, HonorioJWC, JanssensSP, KatovaT, KitakazeM, MerkelyB, O'MearaE, SaraivaJFK, TereshchenkoSN, ThiererJ, VaduganathanM, VardenyO, VermaS, PhamVN, WilderängU, ZaozerskaN, BachusE, LindholmD, PeterssonM, LangkildeAM; DELIVER Trial Committees and Investigators. Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2022;387 :1089–1098.36027570
44 Cowie MR , FisherM. SGLT2 inhibitors: mechanisms of cardiovascular benefit beyond glycaemic control. Nat Rev Cardiol 2020;17 :761–772.32665641
45 Lopaschuk GD , VermaS. Mechanisms of cardiovascular benefits of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. JACC Basic Transl Sci 2020;5 :632–644.32613148
46 Sardu C , TrottaMC, SassoFC, SacraC, CarpinellaG, MauroC, MinicucciF, CalabròP, D' AmicoM, D' AscenzoF, De FilippoO, IannacconeM, PizziC, PaolissoG, MarfellaR. SGLT2-inhibitors effects on the coronary fibrous cap thickness and MACEs in diabetic patients with inducible myocardial ischemia and multi vessels non-obstructive coronary artery stenosis. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2023;22 :80.37005586
47 Udell JA , JonesWS, PetrieMC, HarringtonJ, AnkerSD, BhattDL, HernandezAF, ButlerJ. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022;79 :2058–2068.35589167
48 Marfella R , SarduC, D’OnofrioN, FumagalliC, ScisciolaL, SassoFC, SiniscalchiM, MarfellaLV, D'AndreaD, MinicucciF, SignorielloG, CesaroA, TrottaMC, FrigéC, PrattichizzoF, BalestrieriML, CerielloA, CalabròP, MauroC, Del ViscovoL, PaolissoG. SGLT-2 inhibitors and in-stent restenosis-related events after acute myocardial infarction: an observational study in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMC Med 2023;21 :71.36829203
49 Cesaro A , GragnanoF, PaolissoP, BergamaschiL, GallinoroE, SarduC, MilevaN, FoàA, ArmillottaM, SansonettiA, AmiconeS, ImpellizzeriA, EspositoG, MoriciN, OregliaJA, CasellaG, MauroC, VassilevD, GalieN, SantulliG, PizziC, BarbatoE, CalabròP, MarfellaR. In-hospital arrhythmic burden reduction in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with SGLT2-inhibitors: insights from the SGLT2-I AMI PROTECT study. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022;9 :1012220.36237914
50 von Lewinski D , KolesnikE, TripoltNJ, PferschyPN, BenediktM, WallnerM, AlberH, BergerR, LichtenauerM, SaelyCH, MoertlD, AuerspergP, ReiterC, RiederT, Siller-MatulaJM, GagerGM, HasunM, WeidingerF, PieberTR, ZechnerPM, HerrmannM, ZirlikA, HolmanRR, OulhajA, SourijH. Empagliflozin in acute myocardial infarction: the EMMY trial. Eur Heart J. 2022;43 :4421–4432.36036746
51 Benedikt M , ManggeH, AzizF, CurcicP, PailerS, HerrmannM, KolesnikE, TripoltNJ, PferschyPN, WallnerM, ZirlikA, SourijH, von LewinskiD. Impact of the SGLT2-inhibitor empagliflozin on inflammatory biomarkers after acute myocardial infarction—a post-hoc analysis of the EMMY trial. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2023;22 :166.37407956
52 James S , ErlingeD, StoreyRF, McGuireDK, BelderM, ErikssonN, AndersenK, AustinD, ArefalkG, CarrickD, HofmannR, HooleSP, JonesDA, LeeK, TygesenH, JohanssonPA, LangkildeAM, RidderstråleW, Parvaresh RiziE, DeanfieldJ, OldgrenJ. Dapagliflozin in myocardial infarction without diabetes or heart failure. NEJM Evid 2024;3 :EVIDoa2300286.
53 Butler J , JonesWS, UdellJA, AnkerSD, PetrieMC, HarringtonJ, MattheusM, ZwienerI, AmirO, BahitMC, BauersachsJ, Bayes-GenisA, ChenY, ChopraVK, FigtreeG, GeJ, GoodmanSG, GotchevaN, GotoS, GasiorT, JamalW, JanuzziJL, JeongMH, LopatinY, LopesRD, MerkelyB, ParikhPB, ParkhomenkoA, PonikowskiP, RosselloX, SchouM, SimicD, StegPG, SzachniewiczJ, van der MeerP, VinereanuD, ZierothS, BrueckmannM, SuminM, BhattDL, HernandezAF. Empagliflozin after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2024;390 :1455–1466.38587237
54 Lauer MS , BlackstoneEH, YoungJB, TopolEJ. Cause of death in clinical research: time for a reassessment? J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34 :618–620.10483939
55 Mather AN , CreanA, AbidinN, WorthyG, BallSG, PleinS, GreenwoodJP. Relationship of dysglycemia to acute myocardial infarct size and cardiovascular outcome as determined by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2010;12 :61.21044287
56 Alegria JR , MillerTD, GibbonsRJ, YiQ-L, YusufS; Collaborative organization of rheothrx evaluation (core) trial investigators. Infarct size, ejection fraction, and mortality in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy. Am Heart J 2007;154 :743–750.17893003
57 Berman N , JonesMM, De CosterDA. 'Just like a normal pain', what do people with diabetes mellitus experience when having a myocardial infarction: a qualitative study recruited from UK hospitals. BMJ Open 2017;7 :e015736.
58 Stone GW , SelkerHP, ThieleH, PatelMR, UdelsonJE, OhmanEM, MaeharaA, EitelI, GrangerCB, JenkinsPL, NicholsM, Ben-YehudaO. Relationship between infarct size and outcomes following primary PCI: patient-level analysis from 10 randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67 :1674–1683.27056772
59 Salerno M , SharifB, ArhedenH, KumarA, AxelL, LiD, NeubauerS. Recent advances in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: techniques and applications. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10 :e003951.28611116
60 Eitel I , HintzeS, WahaS, FuernauG, LurzP, DeschS, SchulerG, ThieleH. Prognostic impact of hyperglycemia in nondiabetic and diabetic patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: insights from contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5 :708–718.23051889
61 Reinstadler SJ , StiermaierT, EitelC, MetzlerB, de WahaS, FuernauG, DeschS, ThieleH, EitelI. Relationship between diabetes and ischaemic injury among patients with revascularized ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017;19 :1706–1713.28474817
62 Sutton NR , LiS, ThomasL, WangTY, de LemosJA, EnriquezJR, ShahRU, FonarowGC. The association of left ventricular ejection fraction with clinical outcomes after myocardial infarction: findings from the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network (ACTION) Registry–Get with the Guidelines (GWTG) Medicare-linked database. Am Heart J 2016;178 :65–73.27502853
63 Goraya TY , LeibsonCL, PalumboPJ, WestonSA, KillianJM, PfeiferEA, JacobsenSJ, FryeRL, RogerVL. Coronary atherosclerosis in diabetes mellitus: a population-based autopsy study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40 :946–953.12225721
64 Niccoli G , GiubilatoS, Di VitoL, LeoA, CosentinoN, PitoccoD, MarcoV, GhirlandaG, PratiF, CreaF. Severity of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with a first acute coronary event: a diabetes paradox. Eur Heart J 2013;34 :729–741.23186807
65 Marso SP , MercadoN, MaeharaA, WeiszG, MintzGS, McPhersonJ, SchieleF, DudekD, FahyM, XuK, LanskyA, TemplinB, ZhangZ, de BruyneB, SerruysPW, StoneGW. Plaque composition and clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients with metabolic syndrome or diabetes. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5 (Suppl. ):S42–S52.22421230
66 Ibebuogu UN , NasirK, GopalA, AhmadiN, MaoSS, YoungE, HonorisL, NuguriVK, LeeRS, UsmanN, RostamiB, PalR, FloresF, BudoffMJ. Comparison of atherosclerotic plaque burden and composition between diabetic and non diabetic patients by non invasive CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;25 :717–723.19633998
67 Morgan KP , KapurA, BeattKJ. Anatomy of coronary disease in diabetic patients: an explanation for poorer outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and potential target for intervention. Heart 2004;90 :732–738.15201238
68 Erlinge D , MaeharaA, Ben-YehudaO, BøtkerHE, MaengM, Kjøller-HansenL, EngstrømT, MatsumuraM, CrowleyA, DresslerO, MintzGS, FröbertO, PerssonJ, WisethR, LarsenAI, OkkelsJL, NordrehaugJE, BleieØ, OmerovicE, HeldC, JamesSK, AliZA, MullerJE, StoneGW; PROSPECT II Investigators. Identification of vulnerable plaques and patients by intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy and ultrasound (PROSPECT II): a prospective natural history study. Lancet 2021;397 :985–995.33714389
69 Sugiyama T , YamamotoE, BryniarskiK, XingL, FracassiF, LeeH, JangI-K. Coronary plaque characteristics in patients with diabetes mellitus who presented with acute coronary syndromes. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7 :e009245.30006490
70 Ali ZA , Karimi GalougahiK, MintzGS, MaeharaA, ShlofmitzRA, MattesiniA. Intracoronary optical coherence tomography: state of the art and future directions. EuroIntervention 2021;17 :e105–e123.34110288
71 Woodfield SL , LunderganCF, ReinerJS, GreenhouseSW, ThompsonMA, RohrbeckSC, DeychakY, SimoonsML, CaliffRM, TopolEJ, RossAM. 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 :1661–1669.8962549
72 Padro T , ManfriniO, BugiardiniR, CantyJ, CenkoE, De LucaG, DunckerDJ, EringaEC, KollerA, TousoulisD, TrifunovicD, VavlukisM, de WitC, BadimonL. ESC Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology and Microcirculation position paper on ‘coronary microvascular dysfunction in cardiovascular disease’. Cardiovasc Res 2020;116 :741–755.32034397
73 Kelshiker MA , SeligmanH, HowardJP, RahmanH, FoleyM, NowbarAN, RajkumarCA, Shun-ShinMJ, AhmadY, SenS, Al-LameeR, PetracoR; Coronary Flow Outcomes Reviewing Committee. Coronary flow reserve and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2022;43 :1582–1593.34849697
74 Aljizeeri A , AhmedAI, SulimanI, AlfarisMA, ElneamaA, Al-MallahMH. Incremental prognostic value of positron emission tomography-derived myocardial flow reserve in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2023;24 :563–571.36814411
75 Kato S , FukuiK, KodamaS, AzumaM, IwasawaT, KimuraK, TamuraK, UtsunomiyaD. Incremental prognostic value of coronary flow reserve determined by phase-contrast cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance of the coronary sinus in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2020;22 :73.33028350
76 Gallinoro E , PaolissoP, CandrevaA, BermpeisK, FabbricatoreD, EspositoG, BertoloneD, Fernandez PeregrinaE, MunhozD, MilevaN, PenickaM, BartunekJ, VanderheydenM, WyffelsE, SonckJ, ColletC, De BruyneB, BarbatoE. Microvascular dysfunction in patients with type II diabetes mellitus: invasive assessment of absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance reserve. Front Cardiovasc Med 2021;8 :765071.34738020
77 Hu X , ZhangJ, LeeJM, ChenZ, HwangD, ParkJ, ShinE-S, NamC-W, DohJ-H, ChenS, YangJ, TanakaN, KuramitsuS, MatsuoH, TakashimaH, AkasakaT, KooB-K, WangJ. Prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus and index of microcirculatory resistance in patients undergoing fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization. Int J Cardiol 2020;307 :171–175.31813680
78 Sara JD , TaherR, KolluriN, VellaA, LermanLO, LermanA. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is associated with poor glycemic control amongst female diabetics with chest pain and non-obstructive coronary artery disease. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2019;18 :22.30819191
79 Zhang W , SinghS, LiuL, MohammedAQ, YinG, XuS, LvX, ShiT, FengC, JiangR, MohammedAA, MareaiRM, XuY, YuX, AbduFA, CheW. Prognostic value of coronary microvascular dysfunction assessed by coronary angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance in diabetic patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2022;21 :222.36309724
80 Cortigiani L , RigoF, GherardiS, GalderisiM, BovenziF, SicariR. Prognostic meaning of coronary microvascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a transthoracic Doppler echocardiographic study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2014;27 :742–748.24679741
81 de Waha S , PatelMR, GrangerCB, OhmanEM, MaeharaA, EitelI, Ben-YehudaO, JenkinsP, ThieleH, StoneGW. Relationship between microvascular obstruction and adverse events following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: an individual patient data pooled analysis from seven randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2017;38 :3502–3510.29020248
82 Fabris E , van ‘t HofA, HammCW, LapostolleF, LassenJF, GoodmanSG, ten BergJM, BologneseL, CequierA, ChettibiM, HammettCJ, HuberK, JanzonM, MerkelyB, StoreyRF, ZeymerU, CantorWJ, TsatsarisA, KerneisM, DialloA, VicautE, MontalescotG. Clinical impact and predictors of complete ST segment resolution after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a subanalysis of the ATLANTIC trial. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2019;8 :208–217.28841028
83 Timmer JR , van der HorstICC, de LucaG, OttervangerJP, HoorntjeJCA, de BoerM-J, SuryapranataH, DambrinkJ-HE, GosselinkM, ZijlstraF, van ’t HofAWJ; Myocardial Infarction Study Group. Comparison of myocardial perfusion after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2005;95 :1375–1377.15904649
84 Timmer JR , HoekstraM, NijstenMWN, HorstI, OttervangerJP, SlingerlandRJ, DambrinkJ-HE, BiloHJG, ZijlstraF, van ’t HofAWJ. Prognostic value of admission glycosylated hemoglobin and glucose in nondiabetic patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2011;124 :704–711.21768543
85 Kannel WB , McGeeDL. Diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors: the Framingham study. Circulation 1979;59 :8–13.758126
86 van Melle JP , BotM, de JongeP, de BoerRA, van VeldhuisenDJ, WhooleyMA. Diabetes, glycemic control, and new-onset heart failure in patients with stable coronary artery disease: data from the heart and soul study. Diabetes Care 2010;33 :2084–2089.20805280
87 Jia G , HillMA, SowersJR. Diabetic cardiomyopathy. Circ Res 2018;122 :624–638.29449364
88 Desta L , JernbergT, LöfmanI, Hofman-BangC, HagermanI, SpaakJ, PerssonH. Incidence, temporal trends, and prognostic impact of heart failure complicating acute myocardial infarction. The SWEDEHEART registry (Swedish web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies): a study of 199,851 patients admitted with index acute myocardial infarctions, 1996 to 2008. JACC Heart Fail 2015;3 :234–242.25742760
89 Ritchie RH , AbelED. Basic mechanisms of diabetic heart disease. Circ Res 2020;126 :1501–1525.32437308
90 Kwong RY , SattarH, WuH, VorobiofG, GandlaV, SteelK, SiuS, BrownKA. Incidence and prognostic implication of unrecognized myocardial scar characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance in diabetic patients without clinical evidence of myocardial infarction. Circulation 2008;118 :1011–1020.18725488
91 Russo I , FrangogiannisNG. Diabetes-associated cardiac fibrosis: cellular effectors, molecular mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2016;90 :84–93.26705059
92 Devereux RB , RomanMJ, ParanicasM, O’GradyMJ, LeeET, WeltyTK, FabsitzRR, RobbinsD, RhoadesER, HowardBV. Impact of diabetes on cardiac structure and function. Circulation 2000;101 :2271–2276.10811594
93 Pararajasingam G , LøgstrupBB, HøfstenDE, ChristophersenTB, AuscherS, HangaardJ, EgstrupK. Dysglycemia and increased left ventricle mass in normotensive patients admitted with a first myocardial infarction: prognostic implications of dysglycemia during 14 years of follow-up. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2019;19 :103.31046690
94 Sawano M , LuY, CaraballoC, MahajanS, DreyerR, LichtmanJH, D’OnofrioG, SpatzE, KheraR, OnumaO, MurugiahK, SpertusJA, KrumholzHM. Sex difference in outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in young patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2023;81 :1797–1806.37137590
95 Weaver WD , WhiteHD, WilcoxRG, AylwardPE, MorrisD, GuerciA, OhmanEM, BarbashGI, BetriuA, SadowskiZZ, TopolEJ, CaliffRM. Comparisons of characteristics and outcomes among women and men with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy. GUSTO-I investigators. JAMA 1996;275 :777–782.8598594
96 Kuehnemund L , KoeppeJ, FeldJ, WiederholdA, IllnerJ, MakowskiL, GerßJ, ReineckeH, FreisingerE. Gender differences in acute myocardial infarction—a nationwide German real-life analysis from 2014 to 2017. Clin Cardiol 2021;44 :890–898.34075604
97 Milcent C , DormontB, Durand-ZaleskiI, StegPG. Gender differences in hospital mortality and use of percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2007;115 :833–839.17309933
98 Jneid H , FonarowGC, CannonCP, HernandezAF, PalaciosIF, MareeAO, WellsQ, BozkurtB, LaBreshKA, LiangL, HongY, NewbyLK, FletcherG, PetersonE, WexlerL; Get With the Guidelines Steering Committee and Investigators. Sex differences in medical care and early death after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2008;118 :2803–2810.19064680
99 Radovanovic D , ErneP, UrbanP, BertelO, RickliH, GaspozJ-M; AMIS Plus Investigators. Gender differences in management and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes: results on 20 290 patients from the AMIS Plus Registry. Heart 2007;93 :1369–1375.17933995
100 Elgendy IY , WegermannZK, LiS, MahttaD, Grau-SepulvedaM, SmilowitzNR, GulatiM, GarrattKN, WangTY, JneidH. Sex differences in management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2022;15 :642–652.35331456
101 Plakht Y , Elkis HirschY, ShiyovichA, Abu TailakhM, LibertyIF, GilutzH. Heterogenicity of diabetes as a risk factor for all-cause mortality after acute myocardial infarction: age and sex impact. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2021;182 :109117.34756959
102 Bucholz EM , ButalaNM, RathoreSS, DreyerRP, LanskyAJ, KrumholzHM. Sex differences in long-term mortality after myocardial infarction: a systematic review. Circulation 2014;130 :757–767.25052403
103 Valero-Masa MJ , Velásquez-RodríguezJ, Diez-DelhoyoF, DevesaC, JuárezM, Sousa-CasasnovasI, Angulo-LlanosR, Fernández-AvilésF, Martínez-SellésM. Sex differences in acute myocardial infarction: is it only the age? Int J Cardiol 2017;231 :36–41.27865662
104 Farhan S , BaberU, VogelB, AquinoM, ChandrasekharJ, FaggioniM, GiustinoG, Kautzky-WillerA, SweenyJ, ShahS, VijayP, BarmanN, MorenoP, KovacicJ, DangasG, KiniA, MehranR, SharmaS. Impact of diabetes mellitus on ischemic events in men and women after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2017;119 :1166–1172.28236457
105 Norhammar A , StenestrandU, LindbäckJ, WallentinL; Register of Information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admission (RIKS-HIA). Women younger than 65 years with diabetes mellitus are a high-risk group after myocardial infarction: a report from the Swedish Register of Information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admission (RIKS-HIA). Heart 2008;94 :1565–1570.18450842
106 Chakraborty S , AmgaiB, BandyopadhyayD, PatelN, HajraA, NarasimhanB, RaiD, AggarwalG, GhoshRK, YandrapalliS, AronowWS, FonarowGC, NaiduSS. Acute myocardial infarction in the young with diabetes mellitus- national inpatient sample study with sex-based difference in outcomes. Int J Cardiol 2021;326 :35–41.32781013
107 Hori M , NishidaK. Oxidative stress and left ventricular remodelling after myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Res 2009;81 :457–464.19047340
108 Martinon F . Signaling by ROS drives inflammasome activation. Eur J Immunol 2010;40 :616–619.20201014
109 Simon AR , RaiU, FanburgBL, CochranBH. Activation of the JAK-STAT pathway by reactive oxygen species. Am J Physiol 1998;275 :C1640–C1652.9843726
110 Morgan MJ , LiuZ-G. Crosstalk of reactive oxygen species and NF-κB signaling. Cell Res 2011;21 :103–115.21187859
111 Guzik TJ , MussaS, GastaldiD, SadowskiJ, RatnatungaC, PillaiR, ChannonKM. Mechanisms of increased vascular superoxide production in human diabetes mellitus: role of NAD(P)H oxidase and endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Circulation 2002;105 :1656–1662.11940543
112 Anderson EJ , KypsonAP, RodriguezE, AndersonCA, LehrEJ, NeuferPD. Substrate-specific derangements in mitochondrial metabolism and redox balance in the atrium of the type 2 diabetic human heart. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54 :1891–1898.19892241
113 Wu X , RebollMR, Korf-KlingebielM, WollertKC. Angiogenesis after acute myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Res 2021;117 :1257–1273.33063086
114 Kido M , DuL, SullivanCC, LiX, DeutschR, JamiesonSW, ThistlethwaitePA. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha reduces infarction and attenuates progression of cardiac dysfunction after myocardial infarction in the mouse. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46 :2116–2124.16325051
115 Catrina S-B , OkamotoK, PereiraT, BrismarK, PoellingerL. Hyperglycemia regulates hypoxia-inducible factor-1α protein stability and function. Diabetes 2004;53 :3226–3232.15561954
116 Marfella R , EspositoK, NappoF, SiniscalchiM, SassoFC, PortogheseM, Pia Di MarinoM, BaldiA, CuzzocreaS, Di FilippoC, BarbosoG, BaldiF, RossiF, D’AmicoM, GiuglianoD. Expression of angiogenic factors during acute coronary syndromes in human type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2004;53 :2383–2391.15331549
117 Januszewski AS , WatsonCJ, O’NeillV, McDonaldK, LedwidgeM, RobsonT, JenkinsAJ, KeechAC, McClementsL. FKBPL is associated with metabolic parameters and is a novel determinant of cardiovascular disease. Sci Rep 2020;10 :21655.33303872
118 Ling L , ShenY, WangK, JiangC, FangC, FerroA, KangL, XuB. Worse clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: relevance to impaired endothelial progenitor cells mobilization. PLoS One 2012;7 :e50739.23226370
119 Bahadoran Z , MirmiranP, KashfiK, GhasemiA. Vascular nitric oxide resistance in type 2 diabetes. Cell Death Dis 2023;14 :410.37433795
120 Fadini GP , AlbieroM, BonoraBM, AvogaroA. Angiogenic abnormalities in diabetes mellitus: mechanistic and clinical aspects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019;104 :5431–5444.31211371
121 Kolluru GK , BirSC, KevilCG. Endothelial dysfunction and diabetes: effects on angiogenesis, vascular remodeling, and wound healing. Int J Vasc Med 2012;2012 :918267.22611498
122 An D , RodriguesB. Role of changes in cardiac metabolism in development of diabetic cardiomyopathy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2006;291 :H1489–H1506.16751293
123 Ferreirós ER , BoissonnetCP, PizarroR, MerlettiPFG, CorradoG, CagideA, BazzinoOO. Independent prognostic value of elevated C-reactive protein in unstable angina. Circulation 1999;100 :1958–1963.10556221
124 Buffon A , LiuzzoG, BiasucciLM, PasqualettiP, RamazzottiV, RebuzziAG, CreaF, MaseriA. Preprocedural serum levels of C-reactive protein predict early complications and late restenosis after coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34 :1512–1521.10551701
125 Sakakura K , KuboN, AkoJ, WadaH, FujiwaraN, FunayamaH, IkedaN, NakamuraT, SugawaraY, YasuT, KawakamiM, MomomuraS. Peak C-reactive protein level predicts long-term outcomes in type B acute aortic dissection. Hypertension 2010;55 :422–429.20038755
126 Chalmers JD , SinganayagamA, HillAT. C-reactive protein is an independent predictor of severity in community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Med 2008;121 :219–225.18328306
127 Ridker PM , RifaiN, PfefferMA, SacksFM, MoyeLA, GoldmanS, FlakerGC, BraunwaldE. Inflammation, pravastatin, and the risk of coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Circulation 1998;98 :839–844.9738637
128 Choudhury RP , LeyvaF. C-reactive protein, serum amyloid A protein, and coronary events. Circulation 1999;100 :e65–e66.10517745
129 Ridker PM , BhattDL, PradhanAD, GlynnRJ, MacFadyenJG, NissenSE. Inflammation and cholesterol as predictors of cardiovascular events among patients receiving statin therapy: a collaborative analysis of three randomised trials. Lancet 2023;401 :1293–1301.36893777
130 Ruparelia N , ChaiJT, FisherEA, ChoudhuryRP. Inflammatory processes in cardiovascular disease: a route to targeted therapies. Nat Rev Cardiol 2017;14 :133–144.27905474
131 Klein SL , FlanaganKL. Sex differences in immune responses. Nat Rev Immunol 2016;16 :626–638.27546235
132 Huang S , FrangogiannisNG. Anti-inflammatory therapies in myocardial infarction: failures, hopes and challenges. Br J Pharmacol 2018;175 :1377–1400.29394499
133 Andrassy M , VolzHC, IgweJC, FunkeB, EichbergerSN, KayaZ, BussS, AutschbachF, PlegerST, LukicIK, BeaF, HardtSE, HumpertPM, BianchiME, MairbäurlH, NawrothPP, RemppisA, KatusHA, BierhausA. High-mobility group box-1 in ischemia-reperfusion injury of the heart. Circulation 2008;117 :3216–3226.18574060
134 Zou N , AoL, ClevelandJCJr, YangX, SuX, CaiG-Y, BanerjeeA, FullertonDA, MengX. Critical role of extracellular heat shock cognate protein 70 in the myocardial inflammatory response and cardiac dysfunction after global ischemia-reperfusion. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2008;294 :H2805–H2813.18441202
135 Volz HC , LaohachewinD, SeidelC, LasitschkaF, KeilbachK, WienbrandtAR, AndrassyJ, BierhausA, KayaZ, KatusHA, AndrassyM. S100a8/A9 aggravates post-ischemic heart failure through activation of RAGE-dependent NF-κB signaling. Basic Res Cardiol 2012;107 :250.22318783
136 Schoneveld A , HoeferI, SluijterJ, LamanJ, de KleijnD, PasterkampG. Atherosclerotic lesion development and Toll like receptor 2 and 4 responsiveness. Atherosclerosis 2008;197 :95–104.17888930
137 Prabhu SD , FrangogiannisNG. The biological basis for cardiac repair after myocardial infarction: from inflammation to fibrosis. Circ Res 2016;119 :91–112.27340270
138 Toldo S , AbbateA. The NLRP3 inflammasome in acute myocardial infarction. Nat Rev Cardiol 2018;15 :203–214.29143812
139 Riad A , JägerS, SobireyM, EscherF, Yaulema-RissA, WestermannD, KaratasA, HeimesaatMM, BereswillS, DragunD, PauschingerM, SchultheissHP, TschöpeC. Toll-like receptor-4 modulates survival by induction of left ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction in mice. J Immunol 2008;180 :6954–6961.18453617
140 Zhu J , YaoK, GuoJ, ShiH, MaL, WangQ, LiuH, GaoW, SunA, ZouY, GeJ. Mir-181a and miR-150 regulate dendritic cell immune inflammatory responses and cardiomyocyte apoptosis via targeting JAK 1–STAT 1/c-Fos pathway. J Cell Mol Med 2017;21 :2884–2895.28597963
141 Frangogiannis NG . Cell biological mechanisms in regulation of the post-infarction inflammatory response. Curr Opin Physiol 2018;1 :7–13.29552674
142 Ma Y . Role of neutrophils in cardiac injury and repair following myocardial infarction. Cells 2021;10 :1676.34359844
143 van der Laan AM , ter HorstEN, DelewiR, BegienemanMPV, KrijnenPAJ, HirschA, LavaeiM, NahrendorfM, HorrevoetsAJ, NiessenHWM, PiekJJ. Monocyte subset accumulation in the human heart following acute myocardial infarction and the role of the spleen as monocyte reservoir. Eur Heart J 2013;35 :376–385.23966310
144 Akbar N , BraithwaiteAT, CorrEM, KoelwynGJ, van SolingenC, CochainC, SalibaA-E, CorbinA, PezzollaD, Møller JørgensenM, BækR, EdgarL, De VilliersC, Gunadasa-RohlingM, BanerjeeA, PagetD, LeeC, HoggE, CostinA, DhaliwalR, JohnsonE, KrausgruberT, RiepsaameJ, MellingGE, ShanmuganathanM; Oxford Acute Myocardial Infarction Study (OxAMI); BockC, CarterDRF, ChannonKM, RileyPR, UdalovaIA, MooreKJ, AnthonyDC, ChoudhuryRP. Rapid neutrophil mobilization by VCAM-1+ endothelial cell-derived extracellular vesicles. Cardiovasc Res 2023;119 :236–251.35134856
145 Akbar N , DigbyJE, CahillTJ, TavareAN, CorbinAL, SalujaS, DawkinsS, EdgarL, RawlingsN, ZibernaK, McNeillE, JohnsonE, AljabaliAA, DragovicRA, RohlingM, BelgardTG, UdalovaIA, GreavesDR, ChannonKM, RileyPR, AnthonyDC, ChoudhuryRP. Endothelium-derived extracellular vesicles promote splenic monocyte mobilization in myocardial infarction. JCI Insight 2017;2 :e93344.28878126
146 Ruparelia N , GodecJ, LeeR, ChaiJT, Dall'ArmellinaE, McAndrewD, DigbyJE, ForfarJC, PrendergastBD, KharbandaRK, BanningAP, NeubauerS, LygateCA, ChannonKM, HainingNW, ChoudhuryRP. Acute myocardial infarction activates distinct inflammation and proliferation pathways in circulating monocytes, prior to recruitment, and identified through conserved transcriptional responses in mice and humans. Eur Heart J 2015;36 :1923–1934.25982896
147 Ruparelia N , DigbyJE, JeffersonA, MedwayDJ, NeubauerS, LygateCA, ChoudhuryRP. Myocardial infarction causes inflammation and leukocyte recruitment at remote sites in the myocardium and in the renal glomerulus. Inflamm Res 2013;62 :515–525.23471223
148 Horckmans M , RingL, DucheneJ, SantovitoD, SchlossMJ, DrechslerM, WeberC, SoehnleinO, SteffensS. Neutrophils orchestrate post-myocardial infarction healing by polarizing macrophages towards a reparative phenotype. Eur Heart J 2017;38 :187–197.28158426
149 Nahrendorf M , PittetMJ, SwirskiFK. Monocytes: protagonists of infarct inflammation and repair after myocardial infarction. Circulation 2010;121 :2437–2445.20530020
150 Valgimigli M , CeconiC, MalaguttiP, MerliE, SoukhomovskaiaO, FrancoliniG, CicchitelliG, OlivaresA, ParrinelloG, PercocoG, GuardigliG, MeleD, PiraniR, FerrariR. Tumor necrosis factor-α receptor 1 is a major predictor of mortality and new-onset heart failure in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the cytokine-activation and long-term prognosis in myocardial infarction (C-ALPHA) study. Circulation 2005;111 :863–870.15699251
151 Miyao Y , YasueH, OgawaH, MisumiI, MasudaT, SakamotoT, MoritaE. Elevated plasma interleukin-6 levels in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1993;126 :1299–1304.8249785
152 Dutta P , CourtiesG, WeiY, LeuschnerF, GorbatovR, RobbinsCS, IwamotoY, ThompsonB, CarlsonAL, HeidtT, MajmudarMD, LasitschkaF, EtzrodtM, WatermanP, WaringMT, ChicoineAT, van der LaanAM, NiessenHWM, PiekJJ, RubinBB, ButanyJ, StoneJR, KatusHA, MurphySA, MorrowDA, SabatineMS, VinegoniC, MoskowitzMA, PittetMJ, LibbyP, LinCP, SwirskiFK, WeisslederR, NahrendorfM. Myocardial infarction accelerates atherosclerosis. Nature 2012;487 :325–329.22763456
153 Leuschner F , PanizziP, Chico-CaleroI, LeeWW, UenoT, Cortez-RetamozoV, WatermanP, GorbatovR, MarinelliB, IwamotoY, ChudnovskiyA, FigueiredoJ-L, SosnovikDE, PittetMJ, SwirskiFK, WeisslederR, NahrendorfM. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition prevents the release of monocytes from their splenic reservoir in mice with myocardial infarction. Circ Res 2010;107 :1364–1373.20930148
154 Swirski FK , NahrendorfM, EtzrodtM, WildgruberM, Cortez-RetamozoV, PanizziP, FigueiredoJ-L, KohlerRH, ChudnovskiyA, WatermanP, AikawaE, MempelTR, LibbyP, WeisslederR, PittetMJ. Identification of splenic reservoir monocytes and their deployment to inflammatory sites. Science 2009;325 :612–616.19644120
155 Leuschner F , DuttaP, GorbatovR, NovobrantsevaTI, DonahoeJS, CourtiesG, LeeKM, KimJI, MarkmannJF, MarinelliB, PanizziP, LeeWW, IwamotoY, MilsteinS, Epstein-BarashH, CantleyW, WongJ, Cortez-RetamozoV, NewtonA, LoveK, LibbyP, PittetMJ, SwirskiFK, KotelianskyV, LangerR, WeisslederR, AndersonDG, NahrendorfM. Therapeutic siRNA silencing in inflammatory monocytes in mice. Nat Biotechnol 2011;29 :1005–1010.21983520
156 Frangogiannis NG . The immune system and cardiac repair. Pharmacol Res 2008;58 :88–111.18620057
157 Silverman HS , PfeiferMP. Relation between use of anti-inflammatory agents and left ventricular free wall rupture during acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1987;59 :363–364.3812291
158 Roberts R , DeMelloV, SobelBE. Deleterious effects of methylprednisolone in patients with myocardial infarction. Circulation 1976;53 (Suppl.):I204–I206.1253361
159 Ridker PM , EverettBM, ThurenT, MacFadyenJG, ChangWH, BallantyneC, FonsecaF, NicolauJ, KoenigW, AnkerSD, KasteleinJJP, CornelJH, PaisP, PellaD, GenestJ, CifkovaR, LorenzattiA, ForsterT, KobalavaZ, Vida-SimitiL, FlatherM, ShimokawaH, OgawaH, DellborgM, RossiPRF, TroquayRPT, LibbyP, GlynnRJ; CANTOS Trial Group. Antiinflammatory therapy with canakinumab for atherosclerotic disease. N Engl J Med 2017;377 :1119–1131.28845751
160 Broch K , AnstensrudAK, WoxholtS, SharmaK, TøllefsenIM, BendzB, AakhusS, UelandT, AmundsenBH, DamåsJK, BergES, BjørkelundE, BendzC, HoppE, KlevelandO, StensæthKH, OpdahlA, KløwN-E, SeljeflotI, AndersenGØ, WisethR, AukrustP, GullestadL. Randomized trial of interleukin-6 receptor inhibition in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;77 :1845–1855.33858620
161 Ridker PM , DevalarajaM, BaeresFMM, EngelmannMDM, HovinghGK, IvkovicM, LoL, KlingD, PergolaP, RajD, LibbyP, DavidsonM. IL-6 inhibition with ziltivekimab in patients at high atherosclerotic risk (RESCUE): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2021;397 :2060–2069.34015342
162 Nagareddy PR , MurphyAJ, StirzakerRA, HuY, YuS, MillerRG, RamkhelawonB, DistelE, WesterterpM, HuangL-S, SchmidtAM, OrchardTJ, FisherEA, TallAR, GoldbergIJ. Hyperglycemia promotes myelopoiesis and impairs the resolution of atherosclerosis. Cell Metab 2013;17 :695–708.23663738
163 Flynn MC , KraakmanMJ, TikellisC, LeeMKS, HanssenNMJ, KammounHL, PickeringRJ, DragoljevicD, Al-ShareaA, BarrettTJ, HortleF, ByrneFL, OlzomerE, McCarthyDA, SchalkwijkCG, ForbesJM, HoehnK, MakowskiL, LancasterGI, El-OstaA, FisherEA, GoldbergIJ, CooperME, NagareddyPR, ThomasMC, MurphyAJ. Transient intermittent hyperglycemia accelerates atherosclerosis by promoting myelopoiesis. Circ Res 2020;127 :877–892.32564710
164 Choudhury RP . Transient intermittent hyperglycemia-enhanced myelopoiesis and atherosclerosis. Circ Res 2020;127 :893–895.32910740
165 Edgar L , AkbarN, BraithwaiteAT, KrausgruberT, Gallart-AyalaH, BaileyJ, CorbinAL, KhoyrattyTE, ChaiJT, AlkhalilM, RendeiroAF, ZibernaK, AryaR, CahillTJ, BockC, LaurencikieneJ, CrabtreeMJ, LemieuxME, RiksenNP, NeteaMG, WheelockCE, ChannonKM, RydénM, UdalovaIA, CarnicerR, ChoudhuryRP. Hyperglycemia induces trained immunity in macrophages and their precursors and promotes atherosclerosis. Circulation 2021;144 :961–982.34255973
166 Kimball A , SchallerM, JoshiA, DavisFM, denDekkerA, BoniakowskiA, BermickJ, ObiA, MooreB, HenkePK, KunkelSL, GallagherKA. Ly6CHi blood monocyte/macrophage drive chronic inflammation and impair wound healing in diabetes mellitus. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2018;38 :1102–1114.29496661
167 Ripa RS , NilssonJC, WangY, SøndergaardL, JørgensenE, KastrupJ. Short- and long-term changes in myocardial function, morphology, edema, and infarct mass after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction evaluated by serial magnetic resonance imaging. Am Heart J 2007;154 :929–936.17967600
168 Bajpai G , SchneiderC, WongN, BredemeyerA, HulsmansM, NahrendorfM, EpelmanS, KreiselD, LiuY, ItohA, ShankarTS, SelzmanCH, DrakosSG, LavineKJ. The human heart contains distinct macrophage subsets with divergent origins and functions. Nat Med 2018;24 :1234–1245.29892064
169 Jenča D , MelenovskýV, StehlikJ, StaněkV, KettnerJ, KautznerJ, AdámkováV, WohlfahrtP. Heart failure after myocardial infarction: incidence and predictors. ESC Heart Fail 2021;8 :222–237.33319509
170 Shanmuganathan M , MasiA, BurrageMK, KotroniasRA, BorlottiA, ScarsiniR, BanerjeeA, Terentes-PrintziosD, ZhangQ, HannE, OxAMI Study Investigators. Acute response in the noninfarcted myocardium predicts long-term major adverse cardiac events after STEMI. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2023;16 :46–59.36599569
171 Grune J , LewisAJM, YamazoeM, HulsmansM, RohdeD, XiaoL, ZhangS, OttC, CalcagnoDM, ZhouY, TimmK, ShanmuganathanM, PulousFE, SchlossMJ, FoyBH, CapenD, VinegoniC, WojtkiewiczGR, IwamotoY, GruneT, BrownD, HigginsJ, FerreiraVM, HerringN, ChannonKM, NeubauerS, SosnovikDE, MilanDJ, SwirskiFK, KingKR, AguirreAD, EllinorPT, NahrendorfM. Neutrophils incite and macrophages avert electrical storm after myocardial infarction. Nat Cardiovasc Res 2022;1 :649–664.36034743
172 Esposito K , NappoF, MarfellaR, GiuglianoG, GiuglianoF, CiotolaM, QuagliaroL, CerielloA, GiuglianoD. Inflammatory cytokine concentrations are acutely increased by hyperglycemia in humans. Circulation 2002;106 :2067–2072.12379575
173 Lin Y , RajalaMW, BergerJP, MollerDE, BarzilaiN, SchererPE. Hyperglycemia-induced production of acute phase reactants in adipose tissue. J Biol Chem 2001;276 :42077–42083.11546817
174 Ridker PM , RaneM. Interleukin-6 signaling and anti-interleukin-6 therapeutics in cardiovascular disease. Circ Res 2021;128 :1728–1746.33998272
175 Choudhury RP , BirksJS, ManiV, BiasiolliL, RobsonMD, L'AllierPL, GingrasM-A, AlieN, McLaughlinMA, BassonCT, SchecterAD, SvenssonEC, ZhangY, YatesD, TardifJ-C, FayadZA. Arterial effects of canakinumab in patients with atherosclerosis and type 2 diabetes or glucose intolerance. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68 :1769–1780.27737744
176 Everett BM , DonathMY, PradhanAD, ThurenT, PaisP, NicolauJC, GlynnRJ, LibbyP, RidkerPM. Anti-Inflammatory therapy with canakinumab for the prevention and management of diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71 :2392–2401.29544870
177 Robinson KA , AkbarN, BaidžajevasK, ChoudhuryRP. Trained immunity in diabetes and hyperlipidemia: emerging opportunities to target cardiovascular complications and design new therapies. FASEB J 2023;37 :e23231.37779347
