4.4 Article

Comparison of Long-Term Mortality for Cardiac Diseases in Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 117, 期 7, 页码 1088-1094

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.12.057

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetes mellitus confers the highest mortality risk in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention, but long-term prognosis differences between different forms of cardiovascular disease have not been assessed. We hypothesized that acute heart failure (HF) could have poorer outcomes than acute coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients with diabetes. We performed a prospective study of all consecutive patients admitted in a single year. Patients were categorized according to main cardiologic diagnosis: acute HF, acute CHD, rhythm disorders, or noncardiac disease. A total of 1,293 patients were included, 31.8% had diabetes and had higher mean age, more risk factors, previous cardiovascular disease, and co-morbidities. Hospital mortality (5.6% vs 1.7%; p <0.01) was higher in patients with diabetes. During follow-up (median 58.0 months; interquartile range 31.0 to 60.0), diabetic patients had higher cardiovascular mortality (27.2% vs 9.6%; p <0.01) and. all-cause mortality (35.8% vs 14.5%; p <0.01); cardiovascular disease accounted for 75% of deaths. According to discharge diagnosis, patients with diabetes only had higher mortality rates in the subgroup of acute CHD. Acute HF was the diagnosis with higher cardiovascular (36.9%) and all-cause mortality (44.1%), followed by acute CHD (16.8% and 24.4%) and rhythm disorders (5.8% and 8.8%). Multivariate analysis identified an independent association with higher long-term mortality of acute HF and acute CHD in patients with and without diabetes. In conclusion, 1/3 of cardiology-admitted patients have diabetes and have poorer long-term prognosis, especially when discharged with the diagnosis of acute HF or acute CHD. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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