A Herrero1, G Garzón2, A Gil3, I García2, E Vargas2, N Torres2. 1. Centro de Salud Federica Montseny, Servicio Madrileño de Salud, Madrid, España. Electronic address: ana_herrero85@hotmail.com. 2. Centro de Salud Federica Montseny, Servicio Madrileño de Salud, Madrid, España. 3. Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, España.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is evidence that cardiovascular goals are beneficial in diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the distribution of cardiovascular risk levels in patients with diabetes and the clinical interventions they have received. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. SETTING: SERMAS (Madrid) 2010. SUBJECTS: All patients with diabetes. (n=41,096). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Patients in primary or secondary prevention, metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors control, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Patient and professional variables. RESULTS: Around one-fifth (21.5%) (95%CI: 21.1% -21.9%) in secondary prevention (very high cardiovascular risk). HbA1c was under control in 31% (95%CI: 30.1%-32%), with 49.9% (95%CI: 48.8%-50.9%) with BP under control, and 39.4% (95% CI: 38.4%-40.4%) with LDL controlled. Only 8.9% (95%CI: 8.3%-9.5%) had a well-controlled HdA1c, BP and LDL, and in 19.8% (95%CI: 19%-20.6%) none of these were under control. Of those with an uncontrolled BP, 23.6% (95% CI: 23.2%-24%) had antihypertensive drugs. There was better control in patients older than 70 years, and those who lived in an urban center, or a lower number of patients per day. CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients with very high cardiovascular risk (secondary prevention), just half of them had good control of cardiovascular risk factors (BP and LDL). An association was found between better control and older than 70, urban center or lower number of patients per day. This suggests developing strategies to promote a comprehensive control of cardiovascular risk factors in diabetic patients in secondary prevention.
INTRODUCTION: There is evidence that cardiovascular goals are beneficial in diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the distribution of cardiovascular risk levels in patients with diabetes and the clinical interventions they have received. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. SETTING: SERMAS (Madrid) 2010. SUBJECTS: All patients with diabetes. (n=41,096). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Patients in primary or secondary prevention, metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors control, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Patient and professional variables. RESULTS: Around one-fifth (21.5%) (95%CI: 21.1% -21.9%) in secondary prevention (very high cardiovascular risk). HbA1c was under control in 31% (95%CI: 30.1%-32%), with 49.9% (95%CI: 48.8%-50.9%) with BP under control, and 39.4% (95% CI: 38.4%-40.4%) with LDL controlled. Only 8.9% (95%CI: 8.3%-9.5%) had a well-controlled HdA1c, BP and LDL, and in 19.8% (95%CI: 19%-20.6%) none of these were under control. Of those with an uncontrolled BP, 23.6% (95% CI: 23.2%-24%) had antihypertensive drugs. There was better control in patients older than 70 years, and those who lived in an urban center, or a lower number of patients per day. CONCLUSION: In diabeticpatients with very high cardiovascular risk (secondary prevention), just half of them had good control of cardiovascular risk factors (BP and LDL). An association was found between better control and older than 70, urban center or lower number of patients per day. This suggests developing strategies to promote a comprehensive control of cardiovascular risk factors in diabeticpatients in secondary prevention.
Authors: Sara Guillen-Aguinaga; Luis Forga; Antonio Brugos-Larumbe; Francisco Guillen-Grima; Laura Guillen-Aguinaga; Ines Aguinaga-Ontoso Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 4.241