4.3 Article

Renal damage in patients with Type 2 diabetes: a strong predictor of mortality

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 258-265

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2004.01394.x

关键词

co-morbidity; coronary artery disease; mortality; renal damage; Type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims (i) To compare mortality rates in a cohort of Type 2 diabetic patients with those of the general population; (ii) to assess the prognostic role of pre-existing chronic conditions; (iii) to evaluate the impact of different severity of renal damage on mortality. Methods All 3892 patients with Type 2 diabetes attending our Diabetic Clinic during 1995 and alive on 1 January 1996 were identified and followed for 4.5 years. Information on vital status (100% complete) and causes of death (98.5% complete) for 599 deceased subjects was derived from death certificates. Results In comparison with the general population, standardized mortality ratios (x 100) were: 125 (95% confidence interval 104-148) in patients aged < 75 and 85 (75-95) in patients greater than or equal to 75 years. Cardiovascular diseases and diabetes were responsible for most of the excess deaths. In a Cox-proportional hazard model, renal damage was a powerful predictor of death (hazard ratio = 2.39; 95% confidence intervals = 2.00-2.85). The severity of renal damage was associated with increasing hazard ratios for death from all-cause mortality and from specific causes (especially coronary artery disease, other cardiovascular causes and diabetes) after multiple adjustments. Other significant predictors of death were: greater age, glycated haemoglobin, smoking, lower body mass index, pre-existing coronary and peripheral artery disease and known co-morbidity (cirrhosis and cancer). Conclusions Renal damage of any severity is significantly associated with subsequent mortality from all causes and from cardiovascular diseases. These associations are not confounded by pre-existing co-morbidity or coronary diseases.

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

4.3
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