4.7 Article

Influence of diabetes and diabetes-gender interaction on the risk of death in patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.11.024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of diabetes on long-term mortality in a large cohort of patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND Diabetes is common in HF patients, but information on the prognostic effect of diabetes is sparse. METHODS The study is an analysis of survival data comprising 5,491 patients consecutively hospitalized with new or worsening HF and screened for entry into the Danish Investigations of Arrhythmia and Mortality on Dofetilide (DIAMOND). Screening, which included obtaining an echocardiogram in 95% of the patients, took place at Danish hospitals between 1993 and 1995. The follow-up time was five to eight years. RESULTS A history of diabetes was found in 900 patients (16%), 41% of whom were female. Among the diabetic patients, 755 (84%) died during follow-up, compared with 3,200 (70%) among the non-diabetic patients, resulting in a risk ratio (RR) of death in diabetic patients of 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4 to 1.6, p < 0.0001). In a multivariate analysis, the RR of death in diabetic patients was 1.5 (CI 1.3 to 1.76, p < 0.0001), but a significant interaction between diabetes and gender was found. Diabetes increased the mortality risk more in women than in men, with the RR for diabetic men being 1.4 (95% Cl 1.3 to 1.6, p < 0.0001) and 1.7 for diabetic women (95% CI 1.4 to 1.9, p < 0.0001). The effect of diabetes on mortality was similar in patients with depressed and normal left ventricular systolic function. CONCLUSIONS Diabetes is a potent, independent risk factor for mortality in patients hospitalized with HF. The excess risk in diabetic patients appears to be particularly prominent in females. (C) 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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

4.7
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