BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related differences in treatment and clinical outcome of patients across the entire spectrum of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) have potential clinical implications but have not been well studied. METHODS: The multicenter, prospective, Canadian ACS Registry enrolled 4578 patients hospitalized for ACS between 1999 and 2001 across 9 provinces in Canada. We compared baseline characteristics, in-hospital and post-discharge treatments, and clinical outcome of diabetic and non-diabetic patients. The impact of diabetes on use of thrombolytic therapy and coronary revascularization; and the independent association between diabetes, treatments, and diabetes-treatment interactions on outcome were examined. RESULTS: Diabetic patients with ACS had more cardiovascular risk factors and higher-risk clinical presentation. They paradoxically received less evidence-based medications in-hospital, at discharge, and at 1-year. Although diabetes independently predicted higher 1-year mortality (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15-1.87; P = .002) after adjustment for validated prognosticators, it was also an independent predictor of not receiving thrombolytic therapy (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.95; P = .021) and coronary revascularization (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.82; P < .001). These underused therapies were all independently associated with reduced 1-year mortality, with no significant diabetes-related treatment-outcome heterogeneity. Importantly, diabetes remained an independent adverse prognosticator even after further adjustment for these differences in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based therapies are underused in the contemporary management of diabetic patients with ACS, which partly explains their worse outcome. Diabetes should be considered a high-risk feature in ACS risk stratification that encourages more intensive treatments. Continued efforts to promote adherence to existing proven therapies and to develop novel treatment strategies targeting diabetes-specific cardiovascular pathophysiology are imperative to improve their adverse prognosis.
BACKGROUND:Diabetes-related differences in treatment and clinical outcome of patients across the entire spectrum of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) have potential clinical implications but have not been well studied. METHODS: The multicenter, prospective, Canadian ACS Registry enrolled 4578 patients hospitalized for ACS between 1999 and 2001 across 9 provinces in Canada. We compared baseline characteristics, in-hospital and post-discharge treatments, and clinical outcome of diabetic and non-diabeticpatients. The impact of diabetes on use of thrombolytic therapy and coronary revascularization; and the independent association between diabetes, treatments, and diabetes-treatment interactions on outcome were examined. RESULTS:Diabeticpatients with ACS had more cardiovascular risk factors and higher-risk clinical presentation. They paradoxically received less evidence-based medications in-hospital, at discharge, and at 1-year. Although diabetes independently predicted higher 1-year mortality (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15-1.87; P = .002) after adjustment for validated prognosticators, it was also an independent predictor of not receiving thrombolytic therapy (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.95; P = .021) and coronary revascularization (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.82; P < .001). These underused therapies were all independently associated with reduced 1-year mortality, with no significant diabetes-related treatment-outcome heterogeneity. Importantly, diabetes remained an independent adverse prognosticator even after further adjustment for these differences in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based therapies are underused in the contemporary management of diabeticpatients with ACS, which partly explains their worse outcome. Diabetes should be considered a high-risk feature in ACS risk stratification that encourages more intensive treatments. Continued efforts to promote adherence to existing proven therapies and to develop novel treatment strategies targeting diabetes-specific cardiovascular pathophysiology are imperative to improve their adverse prognosis.
Authors: Michael E Farkouh; Ashish Aneja; Guy S Reeder; Peter A Smars; Ryan J Lennon; Heather J Wiste; Kay Traverse; Louai Razzouk; Ananda Basu; David R Holmes; Verghese Mathew Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-06-24 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Adam N Mather; Andrew Crean; Nik Abidin; Gillian Worthy; Stephen G Ball; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Derek P Chew; Karice Hyun; Erin Morton; Matt Horsfall; Graham S Hillis; Clara K Chow; Stephen Quinn; Mario D'Souza; Andrew T Yan; Chris P Gale; Shaun G Goodman; Keith Fox; David Brieger Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Ida Gustafsson; Anders Hvelplund; Kim Wadt Hansen; Søren Galatius; Mette Madsen; Jan Skov Jensen; Hans-Henrik Tilsted; Christian Juhl Terkelsen; Lisette Okkels Jensen; Erik Jørgensen; Jan Kyst Madsen; Steen Zabell Abildstrøm Journal: Open Heart Date: 2015-02-06
Authors: Thang Nguyen; Khanh K Le; Hoang T K Cao; Dao T T Tran; Linh M Ho; Trang N D Thai; Hoa T K Pham; Phong T Pham; Thao H Nguyen; Eelko Hak; Tam T Pham; Katja Taxis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 2.692