BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary artery disease (CAD) have a poor prognosis. Underutilization and reduced efficacy of evidence-based medications (EBM) or revascularization are among suggested explanations. This report compares the impact of EBM and revascularization on mortality and cardiovascular events (CVE=mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke) in CAD patients with and without DM. DESIGN: Between February 2003 and January 2004 the Euro Heart Survey on Diabetes and the Heart recruited patients with CAD at 110 centers in 25 European countries. The patients were followed with respect to one-year CVE. METHODS: The study population included a total of 3488 patients: 2063 (59%) in the non-DM and 1425 (41%) in the DM group. EBM was defined as the combined use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, beta blockers, antiplatelets and statins while revascularization comprised thrombolysis, percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. RESULTS: Of the eligible patients, 44% with DM and 43% of those without DM received EBM, while 34 and 40% were revascularized. In patients with DM both EBM (0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.67, P=0.001) and revascularization (0.72, 95% CI, 0.39-1.32, P=0.275) had an independent protective effect as regards one-year mortality and as regards CVE (0.61, 95% CI, 0.40-0.91, P=0.015 and 0.61, 95% CI, 0.39-0.95, P=0.025, respectively) in patients with DM compared with the impact of these two approaches in those without DM. CONCLUSION: The systematic use of EBM and revascularization has a highly rewarding, favorable impact on one-year prognosis of DM patients with CAD.
BACKGROUND:Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary artery disease (CAD) have a poor prognosis. Underutilization and reduced efficacy of evidence-based medications (EBM) or revascularization are among suggested explanations. This report compares the impact of EBM and revascularization on mortality and cardiovascular events (CVE=mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke) in CAD patients with and without DM. DESIGN: Between February 2003 and January 2004 the Euro Heart Survey on Diabetes and the Heart recruited patients with CAD at 110 centers in 25 European countries. The patients were followed with respect to one-year CVE. METHODS: The study population included a total of 3488 patients: 2063 (59%) in the non-DM and 1425 (41%) in the DM group. EBM was defined as the combined use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, beta blockers, antiplatelets and statins while revascularization comprised thrombolysis, percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. RESULTS: Of the eligible patients, 44% with DM and 43% of those without DM received EBM, while 34 and 40% were revascularized. In patients with DM both EBM (0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.67, P=0.001) and revascularization (0.72, 95% CI, 0.39-1.32, P=0.275) had an independent protective effect as regards one-year mortality and as regards CVE (0.61, 95% CI, 0.40-0.91, P=0.015 and 0.61, 95% CI, 0.39-0.95, P=0.025, respectively) in patients with DM compared with the impact of these two approaches in those without DM. CONCLUSION: The systematic use of EBM and revascularization has a highly rewarding, favorable impact on one-year prognosis of DMpatients with CAD.
Authors: Marco Roffi; Dragana Radovanovic; Paul Erne; Philip Urban; Stephan Windecker; Franz R Eberli Journal: Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care Date: 2013-06-03
Authors: James F Meschia; Cheryl Bushnell; Bernadette Boden-Albala; Lynne T Braun; Dawn M Bravata; Seemant Chaturvedi; Mark A Creager; Robert H Eckel; Mitchell S V Elkind; Myriam Fornage; Larry B Goldstein; Steven M Greenberg; Susanna E Horvath; Costantino Iadecola; Edward C Jauch; Wesley S Moore; John A Wilson Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 7.914