Blog
About

303
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

      , DO 1 , , MD , 1

      Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications

      Compuscript

      ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, noninvasive testing

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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

          More than 30 million Americans have diabetes mellitus (DM), and heart disease is the cause of death in 68% of them. Patients with DM are at increased risk of developing stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) by several mechanisms. While noninvasive testing for ischemia is an intuitive strategy to reduce cardiovascular events, trial data do not show a clear benefit. For the DM patient with no symptoms and no evidence of SIHD, two randomized trials found no benefit for either nuclear stress or cardiac computed tomography. While silent ischemia is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, on a population level, reducing ischemia does not appear to improve outcomes. Another important consideration in the management of SIHD in DM patients is that recent randomized trial data show no benefit from coronary revascularization for this population. In conclusion, the decision to test for ischemia may be a reasonable option in some DM patient groups; however, in many cases, revascularization for SIHD does not reduce mortality or the rate of myocardial infarction.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 16

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

          A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

          Optimal treatment for patients with both type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease has not been established. We randomly assigned 2368 patients with both type 2 diabetes and heart disease to undergo either prompt revascularization with intensive medical therapy or intensive medical therapy alone and to undergo either insulin-sensitization or insulin-provision therapy. Primary end points were the rate of death and a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major cardiovascular events). Randomization was stratified according to the choice of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the more appropriate intervention. At 5 years, rates of survival did not differ significantly between the revascularization group (88.3%) and the medical-therapy group (87.8%, P=0.97) or between the insulin-sensitization group (88.2%) and the insulin-provision group (87.9%, P=0.89). The rates of freedom from major cardiovascular events also did not differ significantly among the groups: 77.2% in the revascularization group and 75.9% in the medical-treatment group (P=0.70) and 77.7% in the insulin-sensitization group and 75.4% in the insulin-provision group (P=0.13). In the PCI stratum, there was no significant difference in primary end points between the revascularization group and the medical-therapy group. In the CABG stratum, the rate of major cardiovascular events was significantly lower in the revascularization group (22.4%) than in the medical-therapy group (30.5%, P=0.01; P=0.002 for interaction between stratum and study group). Adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar among the groups, although severe hypoglycemia was more frequent in the insulin-provision group (9.2%) than in the insulin-sensitization group (5.9%, P=0.003). Overall, there was no significant difference in the rates of death and major cardiovascular events between patients undergoing prompt revascularization and those undergoing medical therapy or between strategies of insulin sensitization and insulin provision. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00006305.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Projection of the year 2050 burden of diabetes in the US adult population: dynamic modeling of incidence, mortality, and prediabetes prevalence

            Background People with diabetes can suffer from diverse complications that seriously erode quality of life. Diabetes, costing the United States more than $174 billion per year in 2007, is expected to take an increasingly large financial toll in subsequent years. Accurate projections of diabetes burden are essential to policymakers planning for future health care needs and costs. Methods Using data on prediabetes and diabetes prevalence in the United States, forecasted incidence, and current US Census projections of mortality and migration, the authors constructed a series of dynamic models employing systems of difference equations to project the future burden of diabetes among US adults. A three-state model partitions the US population into no diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and diagnosed diabetes. A four-state model divides the state of "no diabetes" into high-risk (prediabetes) and low-risk (normal glucose) states. A five-state model incorporates an intervention designed to prevent or delay diabetes in adults at high risk. Results The authors project that annual diagnosed diabetes incidence (new cases) will increase from about 8 cases per 1,000 in 2008 to about 15 in 2050. Assuming low incidence and relatively high diabetes mortality, total diabetes prevalence (diagnosed and undiagnosed cases) is projected to increase from 14% in 2010 to 21% of the US adult population by 2050. However, if recent increases in diabetes incidence continue and diabetes mortality is relatively low, prevalence will increase to 33% by 2050. A middle-ground scenario projects a prevalence of 25% to 28% by 2050. Intervention can reduce, but not eliminate, increases in diabetes prevalence. Conclusions These projected increases are largely attributable to the aging of the US population, increasing numbers of members of higher-risk minority groups in the population, and people with diabetes living longer. Effective strategies will need to be undertaken to moderate the impact of these factors on national diabetes burden. Our analysis suggests that widespread implementation of reasonably effective preventive interventions focused on high-risk subgroups of the population can considerably reduce, but not eliminate, future increases in diabetes prevalence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cardiac outcomes after screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: the DIAD study: a randomized controlled trial.

              Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the major cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes. But the utility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for asymptomatic CAD is controversial. To assess whether routine screening for CAD identifies patients with type 2 diabetes as being at high cardiac risk and whether it affects their cardiac outcomes. The Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAD) study is a randomized controlled trial in which 1123 participants with type 2 diabetes and no symptoms of CAD were randomly assigned to be screened with adenosine-stress radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) or not to be screened. Participants were recruited from diabetes clinics and practices and prospectively followed up from August 2000 to September 2007. Cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI). The cumulative cardiac event rate was 2.9% over a mean (SD) follow-up of 4.8 (0.9) years for an average of 0.6% per year. Seven nonfatal MIs and 8 cardiac deaths (2.7%) occurred among the screened group and 10 nonfatal MIs and 7 cardiac deaths (3.0%) among the not-screened group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.88; P = .73). Of those in the screened group, 409 participants with normal results and 50 with small MPI defects had lower event rates than the 33 with moderate or large MPI defects; 0.4% per year vs 2.4% per year (HR, 6.3; 95% CI, 1.9-20.1; P = .001). Nevertheless, the positive predictive value of having moderate or large MPI defects was only 12%. The overall rate of coronary revascularization was low in both groups: 31 (5.5%) in the screened group and 44 (7.8%) in the unscreened group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.1; P = .14). During the course of study there was a significant and equivalent increase in primary medical prevention in both groups. In this contemporary study population of patients with diabetes, the cardiac event rates were low and were not significantly reduced by MPI screening for myocardial ischemia over 4.8 years. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00769275.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CVIA
                Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications
                CVIA
                Compuscript (Ireland )
                2009-8782
                2009-8618
                January 2019
                February 2019
                : 3
                : 3
                : 285-290
                Affiliations
                1Malcom Randall VAMC, 1601 SW Archer Rd 111-D, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: David Winchester, MD, Malcom Randall VAMC, 1601 SW Archer Rd 111-D, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA, E-mail: david.winchester@ 123456va.gov
                Article
                cvia20170073
                10.15212/CVIA.2017.0073
                Copyright © 2019 Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                Product
                Categories
                Reviews

                Comments

                Comment on this article