4.5 Article

An unexpected inverse relationship between HbA(1c) levels and mortality in patients with diabetes and advanced systolic heart failure

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 151, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.10.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. PHS HHS [401357JI30608] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background In diabetes, poor glycemic control, as indexed by hemoglobin A1(c) (HbA(1c)), is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and new-onset heart failure (HF). However, in patients with diabetes and HF, the relationship between glucose control and survival has not been investigated. Our study aimed to evaluate the relationship between HbA(1c) levels and mortality in patients with diabetes and advanced systolic HF. Methods We studied a cohort of 123 patients with diabetes and advanced systolic HF referred to a single center with HbA(1c) values measured at presentation. The patients were grouped based on HbA(1c): HbA(1c)<= 7.0 (n=49) and HbA(1c) >7.0 (n=74). Results The cohort was 70% men, ejection fraction of 25%+/- 7, 59% ischemic etiology, HbA(1c) 7.9 +/- 1.8, and diabetes duration of 8.6 +/- 9.0 years. The HbA(1c) groups were similar in age; sex; New York Heart Association class; body mass index; diabetes duration; and insulin, metformin, and glitozone use. HbA(1c) >7.0 was associated with higher ejection fraction, increased beta-blocker, and sulfonlyurea use. Patients with HbA(1c)<= 7.0 had significantly increased all-cause mortality, compared with those with HbA(1c) >7.0 (35% vs 20%, hazard ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.2, P <.01). In multivariate analysis, HbA(1c)<= 7.0 remained associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 2.3, 95% CI 1.0-5.2). Conclusions Paradoxically, elevated HbA(1c) levels were associated with improved survival in this cohort of patients with diabetes and advanced HF. Further investigation is necessary to determine the nature of this relationship and optimal HbA(1c) in patients with diabetes and HF.

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