4.1 Article

Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Is Associated with a Decreased Survival in Heart Failure Patients after Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

期刊

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 1425-1432

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01206.x

关键词

heart failure; diabetes mellitus; cardiac resynchronization therapy; insulin treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves cardiac performance and survival in patients with congestive heart failure. Recent observations suggest that diabetes is associated with a worse outcome in these patients. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of diabetes and insulin treatment on outcome after CRT. Methods: Diabetic status and insulin treatment were assessed in 447 patients who underwent CRT (males 80.8%, mean age 65.7 +/- 9.7 years, ejection fraction 29.9 +/- 6.11%). Patients were stratified in three groups according to the presence or absence of diabetes and insulin treatment. Results: Nondiabetic patients were 366 (79.6%), noninsulin-treated diabetic patients 62 (13.9%), insulin-treated diabetic patients 29 (6.5%). The estimated death rate was 5.15 per 100 patients-year in the nondiabetic group, 8.63 in noninsulin-treated diabetics (HR 1.59, P = 0.240), and 15.84 in insulin-treated diabetics (HR 3.05, P = 0.004). Cardiac mortality accounted for 81% of deaths in nondiabetic patients and for 56% of deaths in diabetic patients. Diabetic patients tended to have a worse recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction over time (P = 0.057) and of the distance at 6-minute walking test (6MWT) (P = 0.018). Conclusions: Insulin-treated diabetes is associated with a worse functional recovery and a higher mortality in patients with advanced heart failure after CRT. While cardiac death accounts for the majority of deaths in nondiabetic patients, a relevant proportion of the mortality in diabetic patients seem to result from noncardiac causes. (PACE 2008; 31: 1425 - 1432)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据