4.7 Article

Diabetes, Glycemic Control, and New-Onset Heart Failure in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Data from the Heart and Soul Study

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 33, 期 9, 页码 2084-2089

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc10-0286

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE- Diabetes is a predictor of both coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure. It is unknown to what extent the association between diabetes and heart failure is influenced by other risk factors for heart failure. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS- We evaluated the association of diabetes and A1C with incident heart failure in outpatients with stable CAD and no history of heart failure (average follow-up 4.1 years). RESULTS- Of 839 participants, 200 had diabetes (23.8%). Compared with patients who did not have diabetes, those with diabetes had an increased risk of heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 2.17 [95% CI 1.37-3.44]). Adjustment for risk factors for CAD (age, sex, race, smoking, physical inactivity, obesity, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol), interim myocardial infarction, and myocardial ischemia did not alter the strength of the association between diabetes and heart failure. After inclusion also of other risk factors for heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, diastolic dysfunction, and C-reactive protein) and medication use, diabetes remained an independent predictor of heart failure (HR 3.34 [95% Cl 1.65-6.76]; P = 0.001). Each 1% increase in A1C concentration was associated with a 36% increased HR of heart failure hospitalization (HR 1.36 [95% Cl 1.17-1.58]). CONCLUSIONS- In patients with stable CAD who are free from heart failure at baseline, diabetes and glycemic control are independent risk factors for new-onset heart failure. The mechanisms by which diabetes and hyperglycemia lead to heart failure deserve further study, as the association is independent of baseline functional assessment of ischemia, systolic and diastolic function, and interim myocardial infarction.

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