No abstract

Background In contrast with the setting of acute myocardial infarction, there are limited data regarding the impact of diabetes mellitus on clinical outcomes in contemporary cohorts of patients with chronic coronary syndromes. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and prognostic impact of diabetes according to geographical regions and ethnicity. Methods and results CLARIFY is an observational registry of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, enrolled across 45 countries in Europe, Asia, America, Middle East, Australia, and Africa in 2009–2010, and followed up yearly for 5 years. Chronic coronary syndromes were defined by ≥1 of the following criteria: prior myocardial infarction, evidence of coronary stenosis >50%, proven symptomatic myocardial ischaemia, or prior revascularization procedure. Among 32 694 patients, 9502 (29%) had diabetes, with a regional prevalence ranging from below 20% in Northern Europe to ∼60% in the Gulf countries. In a multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, diabetes was associated with increased risks for the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.28 (95% confidence interval 1.18, 1.39) and for all secondary outcomes (all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and coronary revascularization). Differences on outcomes according to geography and ethnicity were modest. Conclusion In patients with chronic coronary syndromes, diabetes is independently associated with mortality and cardiovascular events, including heart failure, which is not accounted by demographics, prior medical history, left ventricular ejection fraction, or use of secondary prevention medication. This is observed across multiple geographic regions and ethnicities, despite marked disparities in the prevalence of diabetes. ClinicalTrials identifier ISRCTN43070564

The incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is higher in pregnant patients than in non-pregnant patients. The incidence of thrombosis in all pregnancies is reported to be between 0.05 and 1%, and an incidence as high as 3% may be present in women after caesarean section. Anticoagulant medication is prescribed during pregnancy in patients presenting with VTE, thrombophilia abnormalities, or a history of PE or VTE. Since unfractionated heparin (UH) does not cross the placental barrier, it has become the gold standard anticoagulant therapy during pregnancy. Oral anticoagulants may also be prescribed during the second trimester but they cross the placental barrier. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) are effective, easy to use and have good safety profiles. The practical conditions of use have yet to be validated for pregnancy settings. In the absence of an approved indication, LMWH use during pregnancy is therefore the responsibility of the practitioner. However, several studies on LMWH as prophylaxis for PE or VTE have shown that such products are effective with good safety. Moreover, LMWH use is associated with reduced frequencies of thrombocytopenia and osteoporosis compared with UH use. Very few studies on LMWH use for the treatment of PE or VTE during pregnancy have been published, but the safety of LMWH use in this setting appears to be good. The review of the use of LMWH in pregnancy settings includes recommendations on the practical conditions of use. In the absence of large-scale, randomised, double-blind trials in such settings (which are needed), we propose the use of LMWH as prophylaxis for PE and VTE during pregnancy, but not for the treatment of these conditions. In prophylaxis settings, dalteparin sodium and enoxaparin sodium have been the most widely studied LMWH and we believe that priority should therefore be given to those products. Pending approval of LMWH for use in pregnancy, the use of LMWH off-label is the practitioner's responsibility.

No abstract

No abstract