BackgroundThe independent prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and prediabetes mellitus (pre‐DM) on survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure has been investigated in observational registries and randomized, clinical trials, but the results have been often inconclusive or conflicting. We examined the independent prognostic impact of DM and pre‐DM on survival outcomes in the GISSI‐HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nella Insufficienza Cardiaca‐Heart Failure) trial.Methods and ResultsWe assessed the risk of all‐cause death and the composite of all‐cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization over a median follow‐up period of 3.9 years among the 6935 chronic heart failure participants of the GISSI‐HF trial, who were stratified by presence of DM (n=2852), pre‐DM (n=2013), and non‐DM (n=2070) at baseline. Compared with non‐DM patients, those with DM had remarkably higher incidence rates of all‐cause death (34.5% versus 24.6%) and the composite end point (63.6% versus 54.7%). Conversely, both event rates were similar between non‐DM patients and those with pre‐DM. Cox regression analysis showed that DM, but not pre‐DM, was associated with an increased risk of all‐cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28–1.60) and of the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13–1.32), independently of established risk factors. In the DM subgroup, higher hemoglobin A1c was also independently associated with increased risk of both study outcomes (all‐cause death: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02–1.43; and composite end point: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29, respectively).ConclusionsPresence of DM was independently associated with poor long‐term survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure.Clinical Trial Registration
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00336336.
The purpose was to assess age-related circadian changes of blood pressure profile (BPP) employing a truncated Fourier series with four harmonics (tFs) in patients with essential hypertension. The study was performed on 32 patients with essential hypertension divided in two groups: (A) 15 patients younger than 55 years and (B) 17 patients older than 60 years. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were monitored every 20 minutes for 24 h with a noninvasive portable device (SpaceLabs 90202). To evaluate the existence of SBP and DBP circadian rhythms a one-sample runs-test was performed and the mesor, amplitude, and acrophase from the overall curve of each patient were obtained by tFs. In both groups, SBP and DBP profiles showed a first peak in the late morning and a second peak in the early evening around the same hours. The two peaks in the SBP profile were higher and the two peaks in the DBP profile were lower in older patients than in younger ones (p < .01, p < .05, p < .3, p < .05). The truncated Fourier series with four harmonics evidences different age-related BP profiles characterized by two peaks with higher SBP and lower DBP in elderly patients. These changes of BPP are in accordance with the reported higher risk of cardiovascular events observed around the same hours.
Hypertension and diabetes show arteriolar structural changes of similar gravity. Age does play a role in hypertension but a smaller one than that played by blood pressure. In hypertension and diabetes the lack of significance of the contribution of age to the correlation between minimal vascular resistance and pressure could be ascribed to other neurohumoral factors. These factors play a much more important role in diabetes; where neither blood pressure nor age show any correlation with high vascular resistance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.