A glucose of 220 mg/dL on admission means something quite different in a patient whose HbA1c is 6.0% than in one whose HbA1c is 10.5%. In the first it is an acute stress response and a marker of how sick the myocardium is; in the second it is Tuesday. The stress hyperglycaemia ratio makes that distinction explicit by scaling admission glucose to the patient's chronic glycaemic level.
A dose-response meta-analysis of 13 studies and 41,096 patients undergoing PCI found a raised ratio associated with higher all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, recurrent infarction and stroke — but not repeat revascularisation. The relationship with MACCE looked roughly linear rather than threshold-based, so there is no single cut-off to memorise: higher is worse, continuously.
This costs nothing to adopt. Both numbers are already being measured in most patients coming to the cath lab. In Indian practice, where a large share of patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome have known or newly detected diabetes, the ratio is the difference between reading a high glucose as background noise and reading it as a marker of a patient in more trouble than the angiogram suggests. Use it to sharpen risk discussion and intensity of follow-up — not to justify tighter acute glucose targets, which is a separate question this evidence does not address.
- Order an HbA1c alongside admission glucose in every patient coming for PCI, including those not known to have diabetes.
- Read a high admission glucose against the HbA1c rather than in isolation.
- Treat a disproportionately high acute glucose as a marker of higher risk and follow those patients more closely.
- There is no validated cut-off; the association is graded, so use it as a gradient, not a switch.
- Do not translate a raised ratio into aggressive acute glucose lowering — that is untested here.
The statistics, in plain English
This is a synthesis of observational studies, so it shows association and not cause. Patients with a high stress hyperglycaemia ratio are sicker in ways that also raise their risk, and no amount of statistical adjustment removes all of that — the authors flag residual confounding and note the ratio was defined differently across studies. The dose-response finding is the more useful part: a graded relationship, where more exposure tracks more risk, is one of the features that makes an association more likely to reflect something real. It still does not mean lowering the ratio would lower risk.
Read the rest in the app
You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.
Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.
Tomorrow morning, before your first patient
One edition a day for cardiology, written by the desk, every claim tied to its paper. Six minutes.
Get the app — free