The study titled "Role of SGLT2 Inhibitors in Myocardial Infarction patients with acute left

ventricular Dysfunction" was conducted for a period of six months with a population of sixty
patients suffering from this disease. The data were carefully collected and processed, and the
following are the results obtained after data analysis. Among 60 patients who are participated
in the study 40 patients are the males (66.66%) and 20 patients are the females (33.33%). The
data showed that most patients were in the age of 31-40 (25%). Followed by 41-50 years
(20%), 51-60 (16.66%), 21-30(13.33%), 61-70,71-80 had the same number of patients (10%),
and 81-90(5%). Among the 60 patients 66.66% (40) patients were males and 33.33% (20)
patients were females.

Table 1 Sociodemographic details of the study population

Characteristics Group A Group B P VALUE

(N=30) n (%) n (%)
Age, mean ± SD
0.087
(Years) 56.03± 4.39 58±5.42
Age
81-90 2 (6.66%) 1(3.33%)
71-80 5(16.66%) 3(10%)
61-70 6 (20%) 7(23.33%)
1
51-60 8(26.66%) 9 (30%)
41-50 4(13.33%) 6(20%)
31-40 3(10%) 2(6.66%)
21-30 2 (6.66%) 2(6.66%)
Gender
Male 21(70%) 17(56.66%) 1.43
Female 9(30%) 13(43.33%)
Occupation
Employed 10(33.33% 10(33.33%) 1
Unemployed 10(66.66%) 20(66.66%)
*Statistically significant difference (p≤0.05).
After statistical analysis, it was shown that the mean age in group A was 56.03± 10.39 years,
and the mention the mean of group B is 58±13.42
The χ 2 test was used to analyze the difference in categorical variables in the study population.
*Statistically significant difference (p≤0.05).

AGE WISE DISTRIBUTION:

In our study, patients in Group A and Group B had a greater number of patients in the
age group between 51-60 years. The age wise distribution is represented in the below table.

TABLE 2: AGE WISE DISTRIBUTION

Age (in years) The number of Percentage of The number of Percentage of
subjects in patients (%) subjects in patients (%)
group A (n=30) group B (n=30)
81-90 2 6.66% 1 3.33%
71-80 5 16.66% 3 10%
61-70 6 20% 7 23.33%
51-60 8 26.66% 9 30%
41-50 4 13.33% 6 20%
31-40 3 10 2 6.66%
21-30 2 6.66% 2 6.66%
 Enrolment of patients; n=117

Excluded n = 23
(Failed to meet the criteria n =
13
Refused to participate n = 8)

Randomization of
patients n = 94

Allocation

 TREATMENT
STANDARD STANDRAD TREATMENT WITH
( GROUP
 A ) n=50 DAPAGLIDAPAGLIFLOZIN
( GROUP B ) n = 54

Failed to follow Failed to follow up

up n= 10 n=6
No explanation No explanation n =
n =10 18

Completed n = 30 Completed n = 30


Figure 1: Selection of Patients

Table 3 shows the baseline and follow-up clinical features of the Ejection fraction in the test
and standard groups. With a P value of 0.0004, the Standard group had a mean Ejection
fraction of 47.13±4.65, whereas the Test group had 51.80±3.53. According to standard
approaches, this difference is very statistically significant.

Table 3 Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Group A vs Group B patients

Difference Group A Group B P value

n = 30 n = 30

Mean 47.13 51.80

Standard Deviation 4.65 3.53 0.0004*

SEM 0.85 0.64

Values are expressed in mean± standard deviation. *Statistically significant difference (p≤0.05)

Table 4 shows the baseline and follow-up clinical features of HbA1C in the test and standard
groups. The test group had a mean HbA1C of 6.763±0.697 compared to the standard group's
6.927±1.54, with a P value of 0.5428. Conventional approaches consider this difference to be
not statistically significant.

Table 4 Results of HbA1C of both test and standard group

Difference Group A Group B P value

Mean 6.927 6.763

Standard Deviation 1.54 0.697 0.5428

SEM 0.278 0.127

Values are expressed in mean± standard deviation. *Statistically significant difference (p≤0.05)
The length of the hospital stay between the standard and test group are listed in the table3.
The mean of the hospital of standard group was found out to be 6.5±1.8892, Followed by test
group is 4.0± 1.1142 and the P value was found out to be 0.0001. The difference is
categorised by conventional methods and are statistically significant.

Table 5 Length of hospital stay in Group A vs. Group B Patients

Difference Group A ( in days ) Group B ( in days) P value

Mean 6.5 4.0

Standard Deviation 1.8892 1.1142 0.0001*

SEM 0.3449 0.2034

Values are expressed in mean± standard deviation. *Statistically significant difference (p≤0.05)

DISCUSSION

Participants were enrolled in the experiment using a specified method, and randomization
was performed after validating the inclusion criteria. Demographic data revealed an unequal
distribution of genders among the sample group. This equality in the male and female ratio
emphasizes the importance of demographic study findings. The majority of the research
subjects, regardless of which group they belonged to, appeared to have completed high
school or college, and illiteracy was fairly common. In terms of MI severity, the number of
moderate persistent MI was higher than that of mild persistent MI. The study included both
mild and moderate persistent MI patients but excluded severe persistent MI patients due to an
increased risk of exacerbations and recurrent hospital admissions. Typically, in intervention
trials, patient participation is important for getting better outcomes. Our research sample
included a higher proportion of educated people, which led to improved patient outcomes.
The baseline values of both Standard and Test were observed, and the changes in values after
beginning treatment were recorded in an Excel sheet from the first to the third month,
following which statistical analysis was performed using "one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA)". We found that the Ejection fraction between the standard and test groups was a
statistically significant difference between the two groups, with a p-value of 0.0004, whereas
the HbA1C between the test and standard groups was not statistically significant, with a p-
value of 0.5428, and the length of hospital stay between the standard and test groups was
extremely statistically significant, with a P-value of 0.

CONCLUSION

The study's findings revealed that dapagliflozin medication resulted in a substantial

improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and a shorter length of hospital stay in
myocardial infarction patients compared to standard treatment. Thus, dapagliflozin is a
possible therapeutic option for lowering the risk of myocardial infarction and improving
patient health outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and understand
dapagliflozin's underlying mechanisms of action in the treatment of myocardial infarction.

10. REFERENCES

1. Lu L, Liu M, Sun R, Zheng Y, Zhang P. Myocardial Infarction: Symptoms and

Treatments. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015 Jul;72(3):865-7. doi: 10.1007/s12013-015-
0553-4. PMID: 25638347.
2. Kosuge, M., Kimura, K., Ishikawa, T., Ebina, T., Hibi, K., Tsukahara, K., et al.
Differences between men and women in terms of clinical features of ST-segment
elevation acute myocardial infarction. Circulation Journal, 70(3), 222–226.
doi:10.1253/circj.70.222. PMID 16501283.
3. Valensi, P., Lorgis, L., & Cottin, Y. (2011). Prevalence, incidence, predictive factors and
progno-sis of silent myocardial infarction: a review of the
literature. ArchivesofCardiovascularDiseases, 104(3),178–188.
doi:10.1016/j.acvd.2010.11.013.PMID21497307.
4. Devlin, R. J., & Henry, J. A. Clinical review: Major consequences of illicit drug
consumption. CriticalCare, 12(1),202.
doi:10.1186/cc6166.PMC2374627.PMID18279535.
5. Hamm, C. W., Bassand, J. P., Agewall, S., Bax, J., Boersma, E., Bueno, H., et al. ESC
guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting
without persistent ST-segment elevation: The task force for the management of acute
coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment
elevation of the European society of cardiology
(ESC). EuropeanHeartJournal, 32(23),2999–3054.
doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr236.PMID21873419.
6. Benjamin, E. J., Muntner, P., Alonso, A., Bittencourt, M. S., Callaway, C. W., Carson, A.
P& Virani, S. S. (2019). Heart disease and stroke statistics-2019 update: a report from the
American Heart Association. Circulation, 139(10), e56-e528.
7. Chadwick Jayaraj J, Davatyan K, Subramanian SS, et al. (2019) Epidemiology of
Myocardial Infarction. Intech Open. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.74768.
8. Shaikh R, Khan J (2021) Clustering of lifestyle risk factors among adult population in
India: A cross-sectional analysis from 2005 to 2016. PLOS ONE 16(1):
e0244559. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244559
9. Kirby JB, Yabroff KR. Rural-Urban Differences in Access to Primary Care: Beyond the
Usual Source of Care Provider. Am J Prev Med. 2020 Jan;58(1):89-96. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2019.08.026. PMID: 31862103.
10. Rehman S, Khan A, Rehman A. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure
Island (FL): May 8, 2022. Physiology, Coronary Circulation.
11. Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V. Coronary plaque disruption. Circulation. 2015; 92:657–671
12. Loftus I. Mechanisms of Plaque Rupture. In: Fitridge R, Thompson M, editors.
Mechanisms of Vascular Disease: A Reference Book for Vascular Specialists [Internet].
Adelaide (AU): University of Adelaide Press; 2011. 4. Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534259
13. Sheila Caño-Carrillo, Estefanía Lozano-Velasco, Juan Manuel Castillo-Casas, Cristina
Sánchez-Fernández, Diego Franco, The Role of ncRNAs in Cardiac Infarction and
Regeneration, Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease,
10.3390/jcdd10030123, 10, 3.
14. John Hopkins Medicine (2014). School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA (Internet
reference)
15. Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, Dans T, Avezum A, Lanas F, McQueen M, Budaj A, Pais
P, Varigos J, Lisheng L., INTERHEART Study Investigators. Effect of potentially
modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the
INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2018 Sep 11-17;364(9438):937-52.
16. Goodman SG, Steg PG, Eagle KA, Fox KA, López-Sendón J, Montalescot G, Budaj A,
Kennelly BM, Gore JM, Allegrone J, Granger CB, Gurfinkel EP., GRACE Investigators.
The diagnostic and prognostic impact of the redefinition of acute myocardial infarction:
lessons from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE).
17. Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, Chiuve
SE, Cushman M, Delling FN, Deo R, de Ferranti SD, Ferguson JF, Fornage M, Gillespie
C, Isasi CR, Jiménez MC, Jordan LC, Judd SE, Lackland D, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth L,
Liu S, Longenecker CT, Lutsey PL, Mackey JS, Matchar DB, Matsushita K, Mussolino
ME, Nasir K, O'Flaherty M, Palaniappan LP, Pandey A, Pandey DK, Reeves MJ, Ritchey
MD, Rodriguez CJ, Roth GA, Rosamond WD, Sampson UKA, Satou GM, Shah SH,
Spartano NL, Tirschwell DL, Tsao CW, Voeks JH, Willey JZ, Wilkins JT, Wu JH, Alger
HM, Wong SS, Muntner P., American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and
Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart Disease and
Stroke Statistics-2018 Update: A Report From the American Heart
Association. Circulation. 2018 Mar 20;137(12):e67-e492
18. Patrono C, Morais J, Baigent C, Collet JP, Fitzgerald D, Halvorsen S, Rocca B, Siegbahn
A, Storey RF, Vilahur G. Antiplatelet Agents for the Treatment and Prevention of
Coronary Atherothrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 70(14):1760-1776.
19. Ferreira JC, Mochly-Rosen D. Nitroglycerin use in myocardial infarction patients. Circ J.
15-21. doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-11-1133. Epub 2011 Nov 1. PMID: 22040938; PMCID:
PMC3527093.
20. Boudonas GE. β-Blockers in coronary artery disease management. Hippokratia. 2018
Oct;14(4):231-5. PMID: 21311628; PMCID: PMC3031314.
21. Munekazu Yamakuchi , James J.M. Greer , Scott J. Cameron , Kenji Matsushita , Craig
N. Morrell , Karen Talbot-Fox , William M. Baldwin, III , David J. Lefer , and Charles J.
Lowenstein 19 May 2018 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.0000170229.49776.81
Circulation Research. 2018 doi; 96:1185–1192.
22. Przyklenk K, Kloner RA. "Cardioprotection" by ACE-inhibitors in acute myocardial
ischemia and infarction? Basic Res Cardiol. 1993;88 Suppl 1:139-54. doi: 10.1007/978-3-
642-72497-8_10. PMID: 8357329.
23. Pfeffer MA. ACE inhibitors in acute myocardial infarction: patient selection and timing.
Circulation. 1998 Jun 9;97(22):2192-4. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.97.22.2192. PMID: 9631866.
24. Raftery EB. Haemodynamic effects of diuretics in heart failure. Br Heart J. 2018
Aug;72(2 Suppl):S44-7. doi: 10.1136/hrt.72.2_suppl.s44. PMID: 7946758; PMCID:
PMC1025574.
25. Roe, M. T., Messenger, J. C., Weintraub, W. S., Cannon, C. P., Fonarow, G. C., Dai, D.,
et al. (2010). Treatments, trends, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction and
 percutaneous coronary intervention. Journal of the American College of
Cardiology, 56(4), 254–263. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.008. PMID20633817.
26. Deepak L. Bhatt, Jean-Sébastien Hulot, David J. Moliterno, and Robert A. Harrington
Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapy for Acute Coronary Syndromes
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.302737CirculationResearch. 2018.
27. Kupó P, Szakács Z, Solymár M, Habon T, Czopf L, Hategan L, Csányi B, Borbás J,
Tringer A, Varga G, Balaskó M, Sepp R, Hegyi P, Bálint A, Komócsi A. Direct
Anticoagulants and Risk of Myocardial Infarction, a Multiple Treatment Network Meta-
Analysis. Angiology. 2020 Jan;71(1):27-37. doi: 10.1177/0003319719874255. Epub
2019 Sep 18. PMID: 31533437.
28. Ortega-Paz L, Galli M, Capodanno D, Brugaletta S, Angiolillo DJ. The Role of
Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With MINOCA. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Feb
14;8:821297. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.821297. PMID: 35237672; PMCID: PMC8882905.
29. Bossard M, Gao P, Boden W, Steg G, Tanguay JF, Joyner C, Granger CB, Kastrati A,
Faxon D, Budaj A, Pais P, Di Pasquale G, Valentin V, Flather M, Moccetti T, Yusuf S,
Mehta SR. Antiplatelet therapy in patients with myocardial infarction without obstructive
coronary artery disease. Heart. 2021 Nov;107(21):1739-1747. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-
318045. Epub 2021 Jan 27. PMID: 33504513.
30. Ojha N, Dhamoon AS. Myocardial Infarction. [Updated 2022 Aug 8]. In: StatPearls
[Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; Jan: 2022
31. Shubrook, Jay; Baradar-Bokaie, Babak; Adkins, Sarah (2015) “Empagliflozin in the treat
ment of type 2 diabetes till date. Drug Design, Development and Therapy. 9: 5793–80
32. Hsia DS, Grove O, Cefalu WT. An update on sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors
for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2017
Feb;24(1):73-79.
33. Lytvyn Y, Bjornstad P, Udell JA, Lovshin JA, Cherney DZI. Sodium Glucose
Cotransporter-2 Inhibition in Heart Failure: Potential Mechanisms, Clinical Applications,
and Summary of Clinical Trials. Circulation. 2017 Oct 24;136(17):1643-1658.
34. Held P H, Yusuf S, Furberg C D. Calcium channel blockers in acute myocardial
infarction and unstable angina: an overview. British Medical Journal 2019; 299 :1187
doi:10.1136/bmj.299.6709.1187