Effect of a low dose of empagliflozin on short-term outcomes in type 2 diabetics with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention
======================================================================================================================================================

* Seyed Mohammad H. Adel
* Fateme Jorfi
* Hoda Mombeini
* Homeira Rashidi
* Saad Fazeli

## Abstract

**Objectives:** To study the effects of low dose of empagliflozin on improving outcomes in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

**Methods:** This double-blind controlled clinical trial was carried out on 93 diabetic patients (56 males and 37 females, mean age of 56.55 years) with ACS who underwent PCI at 2 university teaching hospitals in 2020, Ahvaz, Iran. The patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo at similar doses for 6 months after PCI. In addition, to standard treatments with another hypoglycemic agent. Cardiovascular outcomes (including all-cause mortality, coronary revascularization, rehospitalization due to unstable angina, hospitalization due to heart failure, cardiovascular death, non-fetal myocardial infarction, and non-fetal stroke) were evaluated during period of 6 months follow-up after the empagliflozin treatment.

**Results:** There was no significant difference between the low dose empagliflozin and placebo groups after treatment in terms of cardiovascular mortality (2.2% versus [vs.] 4.2%; *p*=0.598), rehospitalization due to unstable angina (4.5% vs. 8.7%; *p*=0.433), and coronary revascularization (2.2% vs. 0%; *p*=0.312).

**Conclusion:** The results of this study showed that adding low dose empagliflozin to standard care of ACS diabetic patients after PCI was associated with no significant reduction in negative cardiovascular outcomes during 6 months.

Keywords:
*   empagliflozin
*   acute coronary syndrome
*   diabetes

**T**here are currently more than 180 million people worldwide with diabetes, and statistics show that the prevalence of diabetes mellitus is increasing worldwide.1,2 Diabetic patients have an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease, CV morbidity, and mortality due to concomitant metabolic abnormalities.3 Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in diabetic patients.4 In addition, these patients are less likely to benefit from standard treatments for coronary artery disease.2,5 Diabetes mellitus in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with poor clinical CV outcome and increased mortality.1 Diabetic ACS patients have poor tolerance for ischemic complications of PCI and short- and long-term ischemic outcome; in addition, major CV events after PCI in diabetic patients is worse than those in non-diabetic patients.6-8 Therefore, proper management of diabetic patients with ACS should focus on reducing the risk of CV events.9 Glycemic control can affect the clinical outcome of diabetic ACS and non-ACS patients after PCI.10,11 Hyperglycemia is also a major part of the pathophysiology of diabetes mellitus. Previous studies have revealed that glucose-lowering therapy, except insulin, has limited effects on CV outcome in diabetic ACS patients.11-13

Empagliflozin is a new drug in the group of sodium glucose transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors that has recently been used clinically to improve cardiac outcomes.17,18 Empagliflozin selectively inhibits SGLT2 and lowers blood glucose without insulin dependence. This unique mechanism of action prevents many other limitations of anti-hyperglycemic drugs such as weight gain and hypoglycemia.17,19 In previous studies, the beneficial effects of empagliflozin on CV mortality and morbidity have been reported in diabetic patients.20,21 In addition, a previous study showed that in diabetic patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), treatment with empagliflozin caused a significant reduction in mortality and CV complications.22 However, few studies have been carried out on the effect of empagliflozin on CV outcome in diabetic ACS patients undergoing PCI.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of low dose empagliflozin on improving CV outcomes in diabetic patients with ACS after PCI.

## Methods

This study was a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial and was carried out on diabetic ACS patients undergoing PCI at 2 university teaching hospitals (namely, Golestan Hospital, Imam Khomeini Hospital), Ahvaz, Iran in 2020. This study was approved by the Vice Chancellor for Research of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (Ethics Code: IR. AJUMS. HGOLESTAN. REC. 1399.107). Informed written consent was obtained from all patients before starting treatment. In addition, the provisions of the ethics statement in the Helsinki study and the principles of patient information confidentiality were observed during all stages of this study. The required sample size was estimated to be 50 people in each group, based on confidence interval of 95% and according to the mean and standard deviation of the incidence of complications in the same study based on the sample size determination formula.21 The diagram of the study process and the exit of the participants is shown in Figure 1. The inclusion criteria included: age over 18 years and previous diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (fasting blood sugar [FBS] ≥126 mg/dL; oral glucose tolerance test ≥200 mg/dL; hamoglobin A1C [HbA1C] ≥6.5%, classic symptoms of hyperglycemia with BS ≥200 mg/dL) with ACS (ST elevation myocardial infarction [MI], Non-STelevation MI [STEMI], unstable angina). Acute coronary syndrome diagnosis requires a clinical, biochemical, and electrocardiographic criteria associated with signs and symptoms of cardiac ischemia and common electrocardiographic abnormalities such as T-wave inversion, ST-segment elevation, or depression. In addition, patients with diabetic ketoacidosis, urinary and genital infections, type 1 diabetes, severe liver failure, any malignancy and cancer, glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73m2, and non-adherence to treatment procedure were excluded from the study. The eGFR was calculated by MDRD formula based on serum creatinine, age, and gender of the patient: eGFR = 175 × (Serum Cr) - 1.154 × (age) - 0.203 × 0.742 (if female) × 1.212 (if the patient was black skin).

![Figure 1](http://smj.org.sa/https://smj.org.sa/content/smj/43/5/458/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1](http://smj.org.sa/content/43/5/458/F1)

Figure 1 
- Study flowchart.

The patient’s information (including age, gender, weight, smoking status, underlying diseases, medical records, and laboratory parameters) was collected at the beginning of the study. After PCI in all patients, the subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups of treatment besides standard hypoglycemic (insulin) treatments with the addition of low dose of empagliflozin or a placebo. A standard treatment to control glycaemia includes insulin administration during the first 3 days; then, this treatment is either continued or changed to an oral hypoglycemic agent according to endocrinologist consultation. Randomization was carried out using a permutation random method with quadruple blocks. Randomization was carried out by a person who did not interfere in the study process. In the first group, the patients received empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) for 6 months, and the placebo group received a placebo for the same period. Empagliflozin (Gloripa, Abidi Pharmaceutical Company, Iran) was provided free of charge by Abidi Pharmaceutical Company, Iran, to the patients under study. A placebo with a color, shape, and packaging similar to empagliflozin tablets was prepared by the Faculty of Pharmacy of Ahvaz Jundishapur University, Bagdad, Iran. The drugs were prescribed to patients under the supervision of an endocrinologist, and the use of drugs was fully explained to patients. Blinding was also carried out in such a way that the person who randomized and assigned individuals to the groups did not know the patients and had no information on the patient’s condition. In addition, the patient and the person reviewing the results did not have information on the grouping of individuals.

The patients in both groups were followed for 6 months. Follow-up visits were carried out in the third and sixth months after treatment, and the patients were carefully evaluated for safety and drug side effects as well as CV complications. In case of non-referral, the patients were reminded by phone to follow-up. Symptoms and clinical examinations, laboratory parameters, echocardiography, electrocardiogram evaluation, as well as the incidence of major cardiovascular complications (MACE) were evaluated during follow-up visits. In addition, the patients underwent invasive or non-invasive diagnostic tests as indicated. Major adverse cardiac events are defined as coronary revascularization, non-fatal MI, all-cause mortality, transient ischemic attack (TIA), cardiac death, recurrent angina, stroke, and hospitalization due to heart failure (HF) which were carefully evaluated and recorded in all patients.23 Any changes in metabolic parameters during the 6-month follow-up were also assessed. Finally, the collected information was statistically analyzed, and the results were compared between the 2 groups.

### Statistical analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 22.0 (IBMCorp, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics including the mean, interquartile range (IQR), frequency, and percentage. The normality of data was evaluated by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the homogeneity of variances was evaluated by Levene’s tests. Owing to the lack of normal distribution of data, non-parametric tests were used to analyze the results in this study. The Mann-Whitney non-parametric test was used to compare quantitative variables between the 2 groups, and Chi-square (or Fisher’s exact test) was used to compare qualitative variables. In this study *p*-value was set at *p*=0.05.

## Results

Participants in the study included 56 (60.2%) men and 37 (39.8%) women between the ages of 30-79 years who were divided into 2 groups of treatment with empagliflozin and a placebo. The results of comparing the basic characteristics of the 2 groups are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
[Table 1](http://smj.org.sa/content/43/5/458/T1)

Table 1 
- Basic characteristics of patients in both groups.

There were 50 patients with STEMI, 6 patients with NSTEMI, and 37 with unstable angina. There was not significant difference between the 2 groups in any of the different variables including age, gender, duration of diabetes, smoking, underlying disease, type of acute coronary syndrome, and number of vessels involved (*p*>0.05). A comparison of different parameters in patients before and after treatment in the 2 groups is shown in Table 2. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of weight, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, eGFR, HbA1c, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) before treatment and during follow-up 6 months after treatment (*p*>0.05). Weight change was significantly higher in the experimental group (*p*=0.001), and the amount of FBS after treatment was significantly lower in the experimental group than in the placebo group (*p*=0.048). During the 6-month follow-up, the empagliflozin group lost an average of 2 kg of weight, while the placebo group did not have any weight loss. The comparison of CV outcomes in diabetic patients under PCI in the empagliflozin and placebo groups is shown in Table 3. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups during 6 months follow-up in terms of CV death (*p*=0.598), hospitalization due to unstable angina (*p*=0.433), and coronary revascularization (*p*=0.312) after treatment. Non-fetal MI, TIA stroke, hospitalization due to HF, and all-cause mortality were not observed in either group.

View this table:
[Table 2](http://smj.org.sa/content/43/5/458/T2)

Table 2 
- Comparison of different parameters in patients in both groups before and 6 months after treatment.

View this table:
[Table 3](http://smj.org.sa/content/43/5/458/T3)

Table 3 
- Comparison of cardiovascular outcome of patients in both groups before and 6 months after treatment.

## Discussion

The results of this study showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of age, gender, smoking, patient weight, duration of diabetes, underlying disease, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, LVEF, eGFR, HbA1c, FBS, and LDL-C before PCI. In addition, the frequency of STEMI, non-STEMI and unstable angina, as well as the number of vessels involved showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. These results indicate that these factors do not affect the results, the complete randomness of the samples, and the absence of bias in sample selection. The results of 6 months follow-up showed that the 2 groups of adding empagliflozin and placebo to standard regime were not significantly different in terms of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, LVEF, eGFR, HbA1c, and LDL-C. The weight loss was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the placebo group.

The amount of FBS after treatment in the experimental group was significantly lower than in the control group (*p*=0.048). However, average blood glucose (HbA1c) was not different between the 2 group, which was possibly due to low dose of drug usage. Empagliflozin is an SGLT2 inhibitor, which has been recently used clinically; it has been shown to improve glycemic control and cardiac outcomes.17,18 Empagliflozin also causes weight loss, hypotension, hypoglycemia, and reducing proteinuria.17,19,20

Our study showed that the empagliflozin and placebo groups were not significantly different compared to the standard treatment results in terms of incidence of CV death, hospitalization due to unstable angina, and coronary revascularization after treatment; although, some positive decreasing trends were observed. Non-fetal MI, non-fetal stroke, TIA, hospitalization due to HF, and all-cause mortality were not observed in either group. In this study, side effects related to the use of empagliflozin were not observed, which is similar to other studies.20,22

The results of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME clinical trial21 involving 7020 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and CV disease showed that 2 daily doses of 10 or 25 mg of empagliflozin compared with placebo significantly reduced major CV complications. The use of empagliflozin resulted in weight loss and reduced risk of CV death, death from any cause, and hospitalization due to HF compared to placebo.21 The results of the study by Verma et al,24 which reported a sub-analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME study, showed that in diabetic patients with a history of CABG, treatment with empagliflozin compared to placebo significantly reduced CV mortality (48.0% reduction), all-cause mortality (43.0% reduction), and hospitalization due to HF (50.0% reduction). The results of a post hoc analysis confirmed that cardio protective effect of empagliflozin was consistent regardless of the multiple baseline risk factor control.25

However, in previous studies, the beneficial effects of empagliflozin on CV mortality and morbidity have been reported in diabetic ischemic heart diseases patients.20-22 There are no studies on the effect of adding empagliflozin to standard treatment on CV outcome in diabetic ACS patients undergoing PCI. Therefore, it was not possible to accurately and comprehensively compare the results of this study with other studies.

In the present study, CV complications in diabetic patients after PCI, who were treated with a low dose of empagliflozin in addition to standard treatment, were not significantly different from those in the placebo group; although, there were positive decreasing trends, but these results were not statistically significant. The obtained result may be due to the duration of treatment, use of low dose of empagliflozin, short follow-up period and significant role of PCI in improving the outcome of ACS diabetic patients, which can reduce the effect of empagliflozin, at least in the short-term clinical outcome. In the setting of acute coronary syndromes, diabetic patients are at high risk for subsequent CV events. At the same time, they derive greater benefit than non-diabetic patients from early coronary angiography and stent-based PCI.26

We hypothesize that long-standing diabetes and PCI intervention in this group of patients may be the reason for the absence of a significant effect of empagliflozin in reducing negative cardiovascular outcomes compared with the placebo group.27,28 Clinical studies of the SGLT2 treatment after PCI are sparse. Patients with a history of angioplasty within 3 months were excluded from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study. Therefore, owing to the lack of a similar study on diabetic ACS patients after PCI and absence of a significant effect of low dose of empagliflozin in reducing CV complications in our patients, it is not possible to provide a definite conclusion.

### Study limitations

The effect of a low dose of empagliflozin was evaluated only for 6 months, and the long-term effects of this drug were not evaluated. The effects of other CV risk factors (such as, inflammation, genetic factors, and socioeconomic status of patients) on the incidence of complications were not investigated. Another limitation of this study is the small number of samples studied, which was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and sampling limitations. To achieve more accurate results, multicenter studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are recommended in diabetic patients with ACS undergoing PCI.

In conclusion, the results of this trial showed that during 6 months of follow-up, the empagliflozin and placebo groups were not significantly different in terms of the incidence of major CV complications including coronary revascularization, hospitalization due to unstable angina, and CV death; although, we observed a positive trend. A low dose of empagliflozin was not more effective than placebo (except in weight loss and FBS control) in improving the outcomes of diabetic ACS patients after PCI. Thus, it seems that the efficacy of using a low dose of empagliflozin in this group of patients is not clear. Owing to the lack of studies in this field, in addition to evaluating the effectiveness of using a low dose of empagliflozin in studies with higher sample size and longer follow-up time, it is recommended to investigate other drugs to reduce the risk of CV events in the proper management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, especially in ACS diabetic patients after PCI.

## Acknowledgment

*This manuscript is taken from a student dissertation with the research project number CVRC-9912 in the Medical School of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Bagdana, Iran. This research was financially supported by the Vice Chancellor for Research of Ahvaz Jundishapur University. We thank Abidi Drug Company and Faculty of Pharmacy of Ahvaz Jundishapur University, Bagdad, Iran for providing the main drug and placebo. The authors would like to thank Falcon Scientific Editing ([https://falconediting.com](https://falconediting.com)) for English language editing.*

## Footnotes

*   **Disclosure.** This study was funded by Vice Chancellor for Research of Ahvaz Jundishapur University, Iran.

*   Received January 8, 2022.
*   Accepted April 10, 2022.


*   Copyright: © Saudi Medical Journal

This is an Open Access journal and articles published are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC). Readers may copy, distribute, and display the work for non-commercial purposes with the proper citation of the original work.

## References

1.  1.Yang Y, Park G-M, Han S, Kim Y-G, Suh J, Park HW, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus in patients undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from a Korean nationwide study. PLoS ONE 2018; 13: e0208746.
    
    

2.  2.Malviya A, Mishra A. Coronary intervention in diabetes: is it different. Heart Asia 2015; 7: 9–14.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToiaGVhcnRhc2lhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjU6IjcvMS85IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MTg6Ii9zbWovNDMvNS80NTguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

3.  3.Zheng J, Cheng J, Zhang Q, Qi C, Wang T, Xiao X. Association between glycosylated hemoglobin level and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e3696.
    
    

4.  4.Park GM, Lee SW, Cho YR, Kim CJ, Cho JS, Park MW, et al. Coronary computed tomographic angiographic findings in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2014; 113: 765–771.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.11.028&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24528613&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 

5.  5.1.  Patel A, 
    2.  MacMahon S, 
    3.  Chalmers J, 
    4.  Neal B, 
    5.  Billot L
    
    ADVANCE Collaborative Group, Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Billot L, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2560.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa0802987&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18539916&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256593600004&link_type=ISI) 

6.  6.Tada T, Kimura T, Morimoto T, Ono K, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, et al. Comparison of three-year clinical outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation among insulin-treated diabetic, noninsulin treated diabetic, and non-diabetic patients from j-Cypher registry. Am J Cardiol 2011; 107: 1155–1162.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.12.013&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21296326&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 

7.  7.Lee TT, Feinberg L, Baim DS, Holmes DR, Aroesty JM, Carrozza Jr JP, et al. Effect of diabetes mellitus on five-year clinical outcomes after single-vessel coronary stenting (a pooled analysis of coronary stent clinical trials). Am J Cardiol 2006; 98: 718–721.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.03.059&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16950169&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 

8.  8.Aguilar D, Solomon SD, Køber L, Rouleau JL, Skali H, McMurray JJV, et al. Newly diagnosed and previously known diabetes mellitus and 1-year outcomes of acute myocardial infarction the valsartan in acute myocardial infarction (VALIANT) trial. Circulation 2004; 110: 1572–1578.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjExOiIxMTAvMTIvMTU3MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjE4OiIvc21qLzQzLzUvNDU4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

9.  9.Kajiwara M, Tanaka A, Kawasaki T, Nakao K, Sakamoto T, Toyoda S, et al. Safety and efficacy of liraglutide treatment in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients after acute myocardial infarction: A non-randomized interventional pilot trial. J Cardiol 2017; 69: 511–517.
    
    

10. 10.Corpus RA, George PB, House JA, Dixon SR, Ajluni SC, Devlin WH, et al. Optimal glycemic control is associated with a lower rate of target vessel revascularization in treated type II diabetic patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: 8–14.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czo0OiJhY2NqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjY6IjQzLzEvOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjE4OiIvc21qLzQzLzUvNDU4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

11. 11.Sasso FC, Rinaldi L, Lascar N, Marrone A, Pafundi PC, Adinolfi LE, et al. Role of tight glycemic control during acute coronary syndrome on CV outcome in type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Res 2018; 2018: 3106056.
    
    

12. 12.McGuire DK, Newby LK, Bhapkar MV, Moliterno DJ, Hochman JS, Klein WW, et al. Association of diabetes mellitus and glycemic control strategies with clinical outcomes after acute coronary syndromes. Association of diabetes mellitus and glycemic control strategies with clinical outcomes after acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2004; 147: 246–252.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ahj.2003.07.024&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14760321&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220253900014&link_type=ISI) 

13. 13.Deedwania P, Kosiborod M, Barrett E, Ceriello A, Isley W, Mazzone T, et al. Hyperglycemia and acute coronary syndrome. Circulation 2008; 117: 1610–1619
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjExOiIxMTcvMTIvMTYxMCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjE4OiIvc21qLzQzLzUvNDU4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

14. 14.Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, Reda D, Emanuele N, Reaven PD, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 129–139.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa0808431&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19092145&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000262258300006&link_type=ISI) 

15. 15.Boussageon R, Bejan-Angoulvant T, Saadatian-Elahi M, Lafont S, Bergeonneau C, Kassai B, et al. Effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and microvascular events in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d4169.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDMvanVsMjZfMS9kNDE2OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjE4OiIvc21qLzQzLzUvNDU4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

16. 16.Hemmingsen B, Lund SS, Gluud C, Vaag A, Almdal T, Hemmingsen C, et al. Intensive glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d6898.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDMvbm92MjRfMS9kNjg5OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjE4OiIvc21qLzQzLzUvNDU4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

17. 17.Fitchett D, Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, Hantel S, Salsali A, et al. Heart failure outcomes with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk: results of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME(R) trial. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 1526–1534.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/eurheartj/ehv728&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26819227&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 

18. 18.Pham D, Albuquerque Rocha N, McGuire DK, Neeland IJ. Impact of empagliflozin in patients with diabetes and heart failure. Trends Cardiovascular Med 2017; 27: 144–151.
    
    

19. 19.Rajasekeran H, Lytvyn Y, Cherney DZ. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition and cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes: the emerging role of natriuresis. Kidney Int 2016; 89: 524–526.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.kint.2015.12.038&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26880444&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 

20. 20.Heerspink HJ, Perkins BA, Fitchett DH, Husain M, Cherney DZ. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in the treatment of diabetes mellitus: cardiovascular and kidney effects, potential mechanisms, and clinical applications. Circulation 2016; 134: 752–772.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIxMzQvMTAvNzUyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MTg6Ii9zbWovNDMvNS80NTguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

21. 21.Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, Fitchett D, Bluhmki E, Hantel S, et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2117–2128.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1504720&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26378978&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 

22. 22.Verma S, Mazer CD, Fitchett D, Inzucchi SE, Pfarr E, George GT, et al. Empagliflozin reduces cardiovascular events, mortality and renal events in participants with type 2 diabetes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: subanalysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® randomized trial. Diabetologia 2018; 61: 1712–1723.
    
    

23. 23.Chang XW, Zhang SY, Wang H, Zhang MM, Zheng WF, Ma HF, et al. Combined value of red blood cell distribution width and global registry of acute coronary events risk score on predicting long-term major adverse cardiac events in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Oncotarget 2018; 9: 13971–13980.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18632/oncotarget.24128&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 

24. 24.Verma S, Mazer CD, Bhatt DL, Raj SR, Yan AT, Verma A, et al. Empagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and left ventricular hypertrophy: A sub analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial. Diabetes Care 2019; 42: e42–e44.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI0Mi8zL2U0MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjE4OiIvc21qLzQzLzUvNDU4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

25. 25.Inzucchi SE, Khunti K, Fitchett DH, Wanner C, Mattheus M, George JT, Ofstad AP, Zinman B. Cardiovascular benefit of empagliflozin across the spectrum of cardiovascular risk factor control in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020; 105: 3025–3035
    
    

26. 26.Cosentino F, Grant PJ, Aboyans V, Bailey CJ, Ceriello A, Delgado V, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD. Eur Heart J 2020; 41: 255–323.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/eurheartj/ehz486&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 

27. 27.Fujita T, Takeda T, Tsujino Y, Yamaji M, Sakaguchi T, Maeda K, et al. Increased restenosis in diabetes mellitus after coronary interventions is due to exaggerated intimal hyperplasia; A serial intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 1997; 95: 1366–1369.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6Ijk1LzYvMTM2NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjE4OiIvc21qLzQzLzUvNDU4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

28. 28.Iakovou I, Schmidt T, Bonizzoni E, Ge L, Sangiorgi GM, Stankovic G, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents. JAMA 2005; 293: 2126–2130.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.293.17.2126&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15870416&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F43%2F5%2F458.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000228808200022&link_type=ISI)