4.7 Article

Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients With Diabetes A 6-Year Cohort Study

期刊

DIABETES
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 708-715

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db11-1015

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK077341]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R01 DK078106]
  3. National Developmental Agency [KTIA-OTKA-EU 7KP-HUMAN-MB08-A-81231]
  4. Hungarian Kidney Foundation
  5. DaVita Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous observational studies using differing methodologies have yielded inconsistent results regarding the association between glycemic control and outcomes in diabetic patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). We examined mortality predictability of A1C and random serum glucose over time in a contemporary cohort of 54,757 diabetic MHD patients (age 63 +/- 13 years, 51% men, 30% African Americans, 19% Hispanics). Adjusted all-cause death hazard ratio (HR) for baseline A1C increments of 8.0-8.9, 9.0-9.9, and >= 10%, compared with 7.0-7.9% (reference), was 1.06 (95% CI 1.01-1.12), 1.05 (0.99-1.12), and 1.19 (1.12-1.28), respectively, and for time-averaged A1C was 1.11 (1.05-1.16), 1.36 (1.27-1.45), and 1.59 (1.46-1.72). A symmetric increase in mortality also occurred with time-averaged A1C levels in the low range (6.0-6.9%, HR 1.05 [95% CI 1.01-1.08]; 5.0-5.9%, 1.08 [1.04-1.11], and <= 5%, 1.35 [1.29-1.42]) compared with 7.0-7.9% in fully adjusted models. Adjusted all-cause death HR for time-averaged blood glucose 175-199, 200-249, 250-299, and >= 300 mg/dL, compared with 150-175 mg/dL (reference), was 1.03 (95% CI 0.99-1.07), 1.14 (1.10-1.19), 1.30 (1.23-1.37), and 1.66 (1.56-1.76), respectively. Hence, poor glycemic control (A1C >= 8% or serum glucose >= 200 mg/dL) appears to be associated with high all-cause and cardiovascular death in MHD patients. Very low glycemic levels are also associated with high mortality risk. Diabetes 61:708-715, 2012

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