Significado pronóstico de la diabetes mellitus en una población con insuficiencia cardíaca: mortalidad e ingreso por insuficiencia cardíaca al cabo de un año

Diabetes mellitus and risk of new-onset and recurrent heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite mounting evidence of the positive relationship between diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure (HF), the entire context of the magnitude of risk for HF in relation to DM remains insufficiently understood. The principal reason is because new‐onset HF (HF occurring in participants without a history of HF) and recurrent HF (HF re‐occurring in patients with a history of HF) are not discriminated. This meta‐analysis aims to comprehensively and separately assess the risk of new‐onset and recurrent HF depending on the presence or absence of DM. We systematically searched cohort studies that examined the relationship between DM and new‐onset or recurrent HF using EMBASE and MEDLINE (from 1 Jan 1950 to 28 Jul 2019). The risk ratio (RR) for HF in individuals with DM compared with those without DM was pooled with a random‐effects model. Seventy‐four and 38 eligible studies presented data on RRs for new‐onset and recurrent HF, respectively. For new‐onset HF, the pooled RR [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 69 studies that examined HF as a whole [i.e. combining HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)] was 2.14 (1.96–2.34). The large between‐study heterogeneity (I² = 99.7%, P < 0.001) was significantly explained by mean age [pooled RR (95% CI) 2.60 (2.38–2.84) for mean age < 60 years vs. pooled RR (95% CI) 1.95 (1.79–2.13) for mean age ≥ 60 years] (P < 0.001). Pooled RRs (95% CI) of seven and eight studies, respectively, that separately examined HFpEF and HFrEF risk were 2.22 (2.02–2.43) for HFpEF and 2.73 (2.71–2.75) for HFrEF. The risk magnitudes between HFpEF and HFrEF were not significantly different in studies that examined both HFpEF and HFrEF risks (P = 0.86). For recurrent HF, pooled RR (95% CI) of the 38 studies was 1.39 (1.33–1.45). The large between‐study heterogeneity (I² = 80.1%, P < 0.001) was significantly explained by the proportion of men [pooled RR (95% CI) 1.53 (1.40–1.68) for < 65% men vs. 1.32 (1.25–1.39) for ≥65% men (P = 0.01)] or the large pooled RR for studies of only participants with HFpEF [pooled RR (95% CI), 1.73 (1.32–2.26) (P = 0.002)]. Results indicate that DM is a significant risk factor for both new‐onset and recurrent HF. It is suggested that the risk magnitude is large for new‐onset HF especially in young populations and for recurrent HF especially in women or individuals with HFpEF. DM is associated with future HFpEF and HFrEF to the same extent.

Comorbidities, Fragility, and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients With Midrange Ejection Fraction

Objective

To assess the effects of comorbidities, fragility, and quality of life (QOL) on long-term prognosis in ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF) with midrange left ventricular ejection fraction (HFmrEF), an unexplored area.

Patients and Methods

Consecutive patients prospectively evaluated at an HF clinic between August 1, 2001, and December 31, 2015, were retrospectively analyzed on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction category. We compared patients with HFmrEF (n=185) to those with reduced (HFrEF; n=1058) and preserved (HFpEF; n=162) ejection fraction. Fragility was defined as 1 or more abnormal evaluations on 4 standardized geriatric scales (Barthel Index, Older Americans Resources and Services scale, Pfeiffer Test, and abbreviated-Geriatric Depression Scale). The QOL was assessed with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. A comorbidity score (0-7) was constructed. All-cause death, HF-related hospitalization, and the composite end point of both were assessed.

Results

Comorbidities and QOL scores were similar in HFmrEF (2.41±1.5 and 30.1±18.3, respectively) and HFrEF (2.30±1.4 and 30.8±18.5, respectively) and were higher in HFpEF (3.02±1.5, P<.001, and 36.5±20.7, P=.003, respectively). No statistically significant differences in fragility between HFmrEF (48.6%) and HFrEF (41.9%) (P=.09) nor HFpEF (54.3%) (P=.29) were found. In univariate analysis, the association of comorbidities, QOL, and fragility with the 3 end points was higher for HFmrEF than for HFrEF and HFpEF. In multivariate analysis, comorbidities were independently associated with the 3 end points (P≤.001), and fragility was independently associated with all-cause death and the composite end point (P<.001) in HFmrEF.

Conclusion

Comorbidities and fragility are independent predictors of outcomes in ambulatory patients with HFmrHF and should be considered in the routine clinical assessment of HFmrEF.

[Early invasive strategy in diabetic patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In the management of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), several studies have shown a reduction in mortality with the use of an invasive strategy in high-risk patients, including diabetic patients. Paradoxically, other studies have shown an under-utilization of this invasive strategy in these patients. The aim of this study is to determine the characteristics of patients managed conservatively and identify determinants of the use of invasive or conservative strategy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study conducted in diabetic patients with NSTE-ACS included in the ARIAM-SEMICYUC registry (n=531) in 2010 and 2011. We performed crude and adjusted unconditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

We analyzed 531 diabetic patients, 264 (49.7%) of which received invasive strategy. Patients managed conservatively were a subgroup characterized by older age and cardiovascular comorbidity, increased risk of bleeding and the absence of high-risk electrocardiogram (ECG). In diabetic patients with NSTE-ACS, independent predictors associated with conservative strategy were low-risk ECG, initial Killip class>1, high risk of bleeding and pretreatment with clopidogrel.

CONCLUSIONS

The fear of bleeding complications or advanced coronary lesions could be the cause of the underutilization of an invasive strategy in diabetic patients with NSTE-ACS.

[Prognostic factors in patients admitted with type 2 diabetes in Internal Medicine Services: hospital mortality and readmission in one year (DICAMI study)]

INTRODUCTION

Type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a prevalent Public Health Care problem that causes an increase in morbidity, mortality and number of hospital admissions as well as increased costs in care services in this population group. The clinical indicator that determine readmission and/or death are analyzed in a 12 month follow-up period.

METHODS

All T2DM patients admitted in Spanish Internal Medicine Services between two different periods (june 1-15, 2003 and november 1-15) were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Primary endpoint were readmission and/or death in the year following the first admission.

RESULTS

Population of the study (n = 482) was distributed in 229 males (47.5%) and 253 females (52.5%). Mean age was 73.48 +/- 8.86 years. A total of 210 (43.6%) were not readmitted to the hospital and/or died in the follow-up and 272 (56.4%) were readmitted and/or died. The latter 272 patients had a significantly greater percentage of heart failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.760; 1.073-2.886), atrial fibrillation (OR 1.747; 1.010- 3.022) and previous history of systolic blood pressure (OR 0.400; 0.241-0.666). They also showed increased levels of plasma glucose (OR 1.004; 1.001-1.007), and lower concentration of plasma hemoglobin (OR 0.756; 0.677-0.845) and creatinine clearance (OR 0.985; 0.976-0.994).

CONCLUSIONS

T2DM patients who are admitted to the Internal Medicine Services in Spain are elderly patients with elevated indices of readmission and death in a short follow-up period (one year). The coexistence of heart failure, atrial fibrillation, renal dysfunction deterioration and decrease in hemoglobin levels may predict this worse outcome.