Pasquale Perrone-Filardi1, Gianluigi Savarese2, Marco Scarano3, Riccardo Cavazzina3, Bruno Trimarco2, Sergio Minneci4, Aldo Pietro Maggioni5, Luigi Tavazzi6, Gianni Tognoni3, Roberto Marchioli7. 1. Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: fpperron@unina.it. 2. Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy. 3. Consorzio Mario Negri Sud, Santa Maria Imbaro, Chieti, Italy. 4. Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Florence, Italy. 5. Centro Studi Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri (ANMCO), Florence, Italy. 6. Maria Cecilia Hospital, GVM Care&Research, E.S. Health Science Foundation, Cotignola, RA, Italy. 7. Consorzio Mario Negri Sud, Santa Maria Imbaro, Chieti, Italy; Hematology/Oncology TDU, Quintiles Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The adverse prognostic impact of metabolic syndrome (METS) in unselected populations and in patients with coronary heart disease has been previously shown. The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the impact of METS on prognosis in chronic heart failure (HF). METHODS: International Diabetes Federation criteria were used for the diagnosis of METS. Adjusted Cox regression models with all-cause and HF death as outcomes were fitted in 6648 patients enrolled in GISSI-HF trial with no missing values for the variables of interest. RESULTS:Risk of all-cause and HF death was significantly reduced in patients with METS compared to patients without METS (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.95, p=0.005; HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.98, p=0.031; respectively). As compared with patients with no METS and no type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), the risk of all-cause and HF death was significantly lower in patients with METS and no DM (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.95, p=0.015; HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.99, p=0.046; respectively), whereas it was significantly increased in patients with DM and no METS (HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.48, p<0.001; HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.72, p<0.001; respectively). Patients with METS and DM showed no difference for risk of total and HF death compared with patients with no METS and no DM (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.21, p=0.762; HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.35; p=0.963; respectively). CONCLUSIONS:METS is associated with reduced all-cause and HF mortality in patients with HF. HF patients with DM without METS are at the highest risk of mortality, whereas METS attenuates mortality risk in HF patients with DM.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The adverse prognostic impact of metabolic syndrome (METS) in unselected populations and in patients with coronary heart disease has been previously shown. The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the impact of METS on prognosis in chronic heart failure (HF). METHODS: International Diabetes Federation criteria were used for the diagnosis of METS. Adjusted Cox regression models with all-cause and HF death as outcomes were fitted in 6648 patients enrolled in GISSI-HF trial with no missing values for the variables of interest. RESULTS: Risk of all-cause and HF death was significantly reduced in patients with METS compared to patients without METS (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.95, p=0.005; HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.98, p=0.031; respectively). As compared with patients with no METS and no type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), the risk of all-cause and HF death was significantly lower in patients with METS and no DM (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.95, p=0.015; HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.99, p=0.046; respectively), whereas it was significantly increased in patients with DM and no METS (HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.48, p<0.001; HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.72, p<0.001; respectively). Patients with METS and DM showed no difference for risk of total and HF death compared with patients with no METS and no DM (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.21, p=0.762; HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.35; p=0.963; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: METS is associated with reduced all-cause and HF mortality in patients with HF. HF patients with DM without METS are at the highest risk of mortality, whereas METS attenuates mortality risk in HF patients with DM.