4.5 Article

Diabetes, diabetes severity, and coronary heart disease risk equivalence: REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS)

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 181, 期 -, 页码 43-51

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2016.08.002

关键词

-

资金

  1. Amgen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Evidence is mixed regarding whether diabetes confers equivalent risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) as prevalent CHD. We investigated whether diabetes and severe diabetes are CHD risk equivalents. Methods At baseline, participants in the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study (black and white US adults >= 45 years old recruited in 2003-2007) were categorized as having prevalent CHD only (self-reported or electrocardiogram evidence; n = 3,043), diabetes only (self-reported or elevated glucose; n = 4,012), diabetes and prevalent CHD (n = 1,529), and neither diabetes nor prevalent CHD (n = 17,155). Participants with diabetes using insulin and/or with albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio = 30 mg/g) were categorized as having severe diabetes. Participants were followed up through 2011 for CHD events (myocardial infarction or fatal CHD). Results During a mean follow-up of 5 years, 1,385 CHD events occurred. The hazard ratios of CHD events comparing participants with diabetes only, diabetes, and prevalent CHD and neither diabetes nor prevalent CHD with those with prevalent CHD were 0.65 (95% CI 0.54-0.77), 1.54 (95% CI 1.30-1.83), and 0.41 (95% CI 0.35-0.47), respectively, after adjustment for demographics and risk factors. Compared with participants with prevalent CHD, the hazard ratio of CHD events for participants with severe diabetes was 0.88 (95% CI 0.72-1.09). Conclusions Participants with diabetes had lower risk of CHD events than did those with prevalent CHD. However, participants with severe diabetes had similar risk to those with prevalent CHD. Diabetes severity may need consideration when deciding whether diabetes is a CHD risk equivalent.

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

4.5
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