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.
Sixty patients admitted to hospital for hemispherical ischemic stroke causing severe disabilities were enrolled in the study. The patients were divided in two groups: A and B. The patients in group A were given intensive rehabilitative treatment; those in group B were given ordinary rehabilitative treatment. Both treatments lasted 14 days. At the end of that period, the patients of both groups were sent to the same rehabilitation center to continue treatment, using the same methods for all. The patients were evaluated by means of the modified N. I. H. Stroke Scale and the Barthel-Index on the day of enrollment, on the 14(th) and 180(th) day. The results obtained from intensive treatment were no better than those obtained from ordinary treatment. This study shows that there is no point in adopting an intensive rehabilitative treatment for an ischemic stroke in its acute phase: a more expensive and time-consuming effort does not in any way lead to a better outcome.
We describe the unexpected case of a 70-year-old man, with medical history of ischemic heart disease and surgery for aneurysm of abdominal aorta, who comes to the emergency department complaining of low-back pain without other symptoms or signs of organic failure. After a few hours we see a deterioration of physical conditions with pulmonary oedema, increase of blood pressure, changing in the ECG pattern, and worsening of left ventricular function with progressive increase of biomarkers for myocardial necrosis. So this pain has revealed the premature symptom of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). After a short time a subsequent cardiac arrest complicates the clinical situation. After resuscitation, the patient undergoes successfully to coronary angiography and performed a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA).
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.