METHODS: Glycaemic control and the prevalence of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, and micro- and macrovascular morbidity was examined in 637 Type 2 diabetic patients in general practice, of whom 405 consented to undergo a more extensive examination. RESULTS: In these 405 patients, HbA1c was > or = 7% in 56.6%, and hypertension and dyslipidaemia were found in 59.8% and 46.5% of the patients, respectively. The level of cardiovascular risk factors was acceptable, according to the European guidelines, in the following proportions of patients: BMI 45.0%; total cholesterol 69.1%; HDL-cholesterol 68.1%; triglycerides 67.8%; current blood pressure 89.8%; and smoking 21.0%. Retinopathy was present in 12.5% and microalbuminuria in 27.0% of the patients. In all 637 patients, the prevalence of angina pectoris was 17.7%, of myocardial infarction 11.4% and of congestive heart failure 10.7%. CONCLUSION: The care for Type 2 diabetic patients needs improvement and should focus on cardiovascular risk factors as much as on glycaemic control.
METHODS: Glycaemic control and the prevalence of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, and micro- and macrovascular morbidity was examined in 637 Type 2 diabeticpatients in general practice, of whom 405 consented to undergo a more extensive examination. RESULTS: In these 405 patients, HbA1c was > or = 7% in 56.6%, and hypertension and dyslipidaemia were found in 59.8% and 46.5% of the patients, respectively. The level of cardiovascular risk factors was acceptable, according to the European guidelines, in the following proportions of patients: BMI 45.0%; total cholesterol 69.1%; HDL-cholesterol 68.1%; triglycerides 67.8%; current blood pressure 89.8%; and smoking 21.0%. Retinopathy was present in 12.5% and microalbuminuria in 27.0% of the patients. In all 637 patients, the prevalence of angina pectoris was 17.7%, of myocardial infarction 11.4% and of congestive heart failure 10.7%. CONCLUSION: The care for Type 2 diabeticpatients needs improvement and should focus on cardiovascular risk factors as much as on glycaemic control.
Authors: Gerlof D Valk; Carry M Renders; Didi M W Kriegsman; Katherine M Newton; Jos W R Twisk; Jacques Th M van Eijk; Gerrit van der Wal; Edward H Wagner Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Amber Awa van der Heijden; Simone P Rauh; Jacqueline M Dekker; Joline W Beulens; Petra Elders; Leen M 't Hart; Femke Rutters; Nienke van Leeuwen; Giel Nijpels Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 2.692