4.4 Article

Diabetic retinopathy predicts cardiovascular mortality in diabetes: a meta-analysis

期刊

BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-020-01763-z

关键词

Diabetic retinopathy; Cardiovascular disease; Mortality; Diabetes; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Zhejiang Province Natural Science Foundation [LY17H020008]
  2. National Health Commission Science Research Fund-Zhejiang Major Science and Technology Projects for Health [WKJ-ZJ-2121]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe prognostic significance of diabetic retinopathy (DR) for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remained unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to assess whether DR predicted CVD mortality in diabetic patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for cohort studies reporting the association of DR and CVD mortality. Then we pooled the data for analysis.ResultsAfter screening the literature, 10 eligible studies with 11,239 diabetic subjects were finally included in quantitative synthesis. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of DR, mild DR, and severe DR for CVD mortality was 1.83 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42, 2.36; p<0.001), 1.13 (95% CI 0.81, 1.59; p=0.46), and 2.26 (1.31, 3.91; p=0.003), respectively, compared to those without DR. In type 2 DM, the patients with DR had a significantly higher CVD mortality (RR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.27, 2.24; p<0.001). Subgroup analysis also showed a significantly higher CVD mortality in DR according to various regions, study design, data source, and follow-up period (all RR>1; all P values<0.05). Data from 2 studies showed no significant correlation of DR and CVD mortality in diabetic patients receiving cardiovascular surgery (RR: 2.40; 95% CI 0.63, 9.18; P=0.200).ConclusionsDR is a risk marker of cardiovascular death, and severe DR predicts a doubled mortality of CVD in diabetes. These findings indicate the importance of early identification and management of diabetic patients with DR to reduce the risk of death.

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