55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Influence of diabetes mellitus on heart failure risk and outcome

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Our aim is to summarize and discuss the recent literature linking diabetes mellitus with heart failure, and to address the issue of the optimal treatment for diabetic patients with heart failure.

          The studies linking diabetes mellitus (DM) with heart failure (HF)

          The prevalence of diabetes mellitus in heart failure populations is close to 20% compared with 4 to 6% in control populations. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated an increased risk of heart failure in diabetics; moreover, in diabetic populations, poor glycemic control has been associated with an increased risk of heart failure. Various mechanisms may link diabetes mellitus to heart failure: firstly, associated comorbidities such as hypertension may play a role; secondly, diabetes accelerates the development of coronary atherosclerosis; thirdly, experimental and clinical studies support the existence of a specific diabetic cardiomyopathy related to microangiopathy, metabolic factors or myocardial fibrosis. Subgroup analyses of randomized trials demonstrate that diabetes is also an important prognostic factor in heart failure. In addition, it has been suggested that the deleterious impact of diabetes may be especially marked in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

          Treatment of heart failure in diabetic patients

          The knowledge of the diabetic status may help to define the optimal therapeutic strategy for heart failure patients. Cornerstone treatments such as ACE inhibitors or beta-blockers appear to be uniformly beneficial in diabetic and non diabetic populations. However, in ischemic cardiomyopathy, the choice of the revascularization technique may differ according to diabetic status. Finally, clinical studies are needed to determine whether improved metabolic control might favorably influence the outcome of diabetic heart failure patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references85

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The Framingham study.

          Based on 20 years of surveillance of the Framingham cohort relating subsequent cardiovascular events to prior evidence of diabetes, a twofold to threefold increased risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease was reported. The relative impact was greatest for intermittent claudication (IC) and congestive heart failure (CHF) and least for coronary heart disease (CHD), which was, nevertheless, on an absolute scale the chief sequela. The relative impact was substantially greater for women than for men. For each of the cardiovascular diseases (CVD), morbidity and mortality were higher for diabetic women than for nondiabetic men. After adjustment for other associated risk factors, the relative impact of diabetes on CHD, IC, or stroke incidence was the same for women as for men; for CVD death and CHF, it was greater for women. Cardiovascular mortality was actually about as great for diabetic women as for diabetic men.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial.

            In patients with heart failure, beta-blockade has improved morbidity and left-ventricular function, but the impact on survival is uncertain. We investigated the efficacy of bisoprolol, a beta1 selective adrenoceptor blocker in decreasing all-cause mortality in chronic heart failure. In a multicentre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial in Europe, we enrolled 2647 symptomatic patients in New York Heart Association class III or IV, with left-ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less receiving standard therapy with diuretics and inhibitors of angiotensin-converting enzyme. We randomly assigned patients bisoprolol 1.25 mg (n=1327) or placebo (n=1320) daily, the drug being progressively increased to a maximum of 10 mg per day. Patients were followed up for a mean of 1.3 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. CIBIS-II was stopped early, after the second interim analysis, because bisoprolol showed a significant mortality benefit. All-cause mortality was significantly lower with bisoprolol than on placebo (156 [11.8%] vs 228 [17.3%] deaths with a hazard ratio of 0.66 (95% CI 0.54-0.81, p<0.0001). There were significantly fewer sudden deaths among patients on bisoprolol than in those on placebo (48 [3.6%] vs 83 [6.3%] deaths), with a hazard ratio of 0.56 (0.39-0.80, p=0.0011). Treatment effects were independent of the severity or cause of heart failure. Beta-blocker therapy had benefits for survival in stable heart-failure patients. Results should not, however, be extrapolated to patients with severe class IV symptoms and recent instability because safety and efficacy has not been established in these patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization.

              The need for repeated treatment of restenosis of a treated vessel remains the main limitation of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Because sirolimus (rapamycin) inhibits the proliferation of lymphocytes and smooth-muscle cells, we compared a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard uncoated stent in patients with angina pectoris. We performed a randomized, double-blind trial to compare the two types of stents for revascularization of single, primary lesions in native coronary arteries. The trial included 238 patients at 19 medical centers. The primary end point was in-stent late luminal loss (the difference between the minimal luminal diameter immediately after the procedure and the diameter at six months). Secondary end points included the percentage of in-stent stenosis of the luminal diameter and the rate of restenosis (luminal narrowing of 50 percent or more). We also analyzed a composite clinical end point consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous or surgical revascularization at 1, 6, and 12 months. At six months, the degree of neointimal proliferation, manifested as the mean (+/-SD) late luminal loss, was significantly lower in the sirolimus-stent group (-0.01+/-0.33 mm) than in the standard-stent group (0.80+/-0.53 mm, P<0.001). None of the patients in the sirolimus-stent group, as compared with 26.6 percent of those in the standard-stent group, had restenosis of 50 percent or more of the luminal diameter (P<0.001). There were no episodes of stent thrombosis. During a follow-up period of up to one year, the overall rate of major cardiac events was 5.8 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 28.8 percent in the standard-stent group (P<0.001). The difference was due entirely to a higher rate of revascularization of the target vessel in the standard-stent group. As compared with a standard coronary stent, a sirolimus-eluting stent shows considerable promise for the prevention of neointimal proliferation, restenosis, and associated clinical events.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cardiovasc Diabetol
                Cardiovascular Diabetology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1475-2840
                2003
                8 January 2003
                : 2
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, Place de Verdun, 59037 Lille cedex, France
                Article
                1475-2840-2-1
                10.1186/1475-2840-2-1
                149427
                12556246
                0a8ddb9c-7775-4d84-9475-d3d2ee39e3ee
                Copyright © 2003 Bauters et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
                History
                : 6 December 2002
                : 8 January 2003
                Categories
                Review

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                Endocrinology & Diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article