BackgroundAlthough multidisciplinary treatment is recommended for type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension (HTN), there is a lack of scientific literature supporting the hypothesis of extending this treatment strategy to patients with both diabetes and HTN. Aiming to report results of long-term multidisciplinary treatment for these patients and identify strategies to improve their management, we conducted this study.MethodsData of patients with diabetes and HTN with regular follow-up visits in a multidisciplinary HTN treatment center from Brazil’s Midwest were retrospectively assessed. Patients ≥ 18 years enrolled in the service by June 2017 with a minimum of three visits were included. Anthropometric, blood pressure (BP), laboratory, pharmacological treatment, lifestyle, and cardiovascular events data were collected from first (V1), intermediate (V2) and most recent (V3) visits to the service. BP < 130 × 80 mmHg, LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) < 70 mg/dL and HbA1C < 7.0% were defined as treatment targets. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare variables along study visits. A linear regression model was built to identify variables associated with better overall patient control.ResultsA total of 162 patients were included (mean age of 56.5 ± 10.8 years). Median follow-up time was 60 (IQR 40–109) months, 80.2% of the sample was female and 83.3% had no cardiovascular event history. BP, total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides and HbA1C values showed a significant trend to improve along the study visits (p < 0.001). Growing trend in aspirin (p = 0.045) and statins (p < 0.001) use was found, in addition to treatment compliance increase (p < 0.001). Significant improvement trends in BP (p < 0.001), LDL-C (p = 0.004) and HbA1C (p = 0.002) control were also found across visits. Control rates of BP, LDL-C and HbA1C in combination were low in V1, V2 and V3 (1.2, 1.9 and 6.8%, respectively), but showed significant improvement trend (p < 0.001). Treatment compliance (β-coefficient = 1.20; 95% CI 1.07–1.34; p < 0.001) was positively associated with better overall patients control.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary treatment of patients with diabetes and HTN significantly improved clinical and laboratory parameters, despite ageing of population evaluated. Although combined control of HbA1C, BP and LDL-cholesterol increased along follow-up, management of all these three conditions needs to improve, and focus on treatment compliance should be given to attain this goal.
Cohort studies assessing predictive values of self-rated health (SRH) and illiteracy on mortality in low-to-middle income countries are missing in the literature. Aiming to determine if these two variables were death predictors, an observational prospective population-based cohort study was conducted in a Brazilian small city. The cohort was established in 2002 with a representative sample of adults living in the city, and re-assessed in 2015. Sociodemographic (including illiteracy), anthropometric, lifestyle, previous CVD, and SRH data were collected. Cox proportional hazard models were designed to assess SRH and illiteracy in 2002 as death (all causes, CVD and non-CVD) predictors in 2015. From a total of 1066 individuals included in this study, 95(9%) died of non-CVD causes and 53(5%) from CVD causes. Mortality rates were higher among those with worse SRH in comparison to better health status categories for all causes of death, CVD and non-CVD deaths (p<0.001 for all outcomes). Similarly, illiterate individuals had higher mortality rates in comparison to non-illiterate for all causes of death (p<0.001), CVD (p = 0.004) and non-CVD death (p<0.001). Higher SRH negatively predicted CVD death (HR 0.44; 95%CI 0.44–0.95; p = 0.027) and all causes of death (OR 0.40; 95%CI 0.20–0.78; p = 0.008) while illiteracy positively predicted Non-CVD death (OR 1.59; 95%CI 1.03–2.54; p = 0.046). In conclusion, we found in this large Brazilian cohort followed for 13 years that better health perception was a negative predictor of death from all causes and CVD deaths, while illiteracy was a positive predictor of non-CVD deaths.
Deaths from cardiovascular disease, according to the WHO, are projected to reach around 14 million by 2030. The global population is aging at an accelerated rate and the prevalence of arterial hypertension (AH) increases with advancing age. 1 Aging is the common denominator in several cardiovascular diseases. Arterial stiffness and increased pulse wave velocity (PWV), as well as central systolic pressure are major predictors of cardiovascular events.
Background and Aims There is little information on the incremental prognostic importance of frailty beyond conventional prognostic variables in heart failure (HF) populations from different country income levels. Methods A total of 3429 adults with HF (age 61 ± 14 years, 33% women) from 27 high-, middle- and low-income countries were prospectively studied. Baseline frailty was evaluated by the Fried index, incorporating handgrip strength, gait speed, physical activity, unintended weight loss, and self-reported exhaustion. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 39 ± 14% and 26% had New York Heart Association Class III/IV symptoms. Participants were followed for a median (25th to 75th percentile) of 3.1 (2.0–4.3) years. Cox proportional hazard models for death and HF hospitalization adjusted for country income level; age; sex; education; HF aetiology; left ventricular ejection fraction; diabetes; tobacco and alcohol use; New York Heart Association functional class; HF medication use; blood pressure; and haemoglobin, sodium, and creatinine concentrations were performed. The incremental discriminatory value of frailty over and above the MAGGIC risk score was evaluated by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. Results At baseline, 18% of participants were robust, 61% pre-frail, and 21% frail. During follow-up, 565 (16%) participants died and 471 (14%) were hospitalized for HF. Respective adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for death among the pre-frail and frail were 1.59 (1.12–2.26) and 2.92 (1.99–4.27). Respective adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for HF hospitalization were 1.32 (0.93–1.87) and 1.97 (1.33–2.91). Findings were consistent among different country income levels and by most subgroups. Adding frailty to the MAGGIC risk score improved the discrimination of future death and HF hospitalization. Conclusions Frailty confers substantial incremental prognostic information to prognostic variables for predicting death and HF hospitalization. The relationship between frailty and these outcomes is consistent across countries at all income levels.
KeywordsCentral blood pressure hypertension risk factors evidence-based practice A B S T R A C T Background: Central blood pressure values and arterial stiffness have demonstrated to be a useful tool to stratify cardiovascular risk and also as a biomarker. A question that is still unanswered is if hypertension treatment guided by central blood pressure parameters will be even better to promote cardiovascular protection than peripheral one. Methods: With this proposition we have designed an open prospective multicentric randomized protocol to compare central (G1) and peripheral (G2) blood pressure targets during 1 year follow-up concerning target organ damage (carotid intima media thickness, left ventricular hypertrophy, microalbuminuria and pulse wave velocity). OMRON 1100 will be used to access peripheral and Mobil O'Graph to access central blood pressure and pulse wave velocity, TOSHIBA Xsario with longitudinal linear transdutor 7.5 MHz bidimensional mode B to access carotid and left ventricular parameters. Expected Results: This paper aims to describe methodological aspects concerning this research and we expect to find results to answer some open questions about hypertension treatment and cardiovascular protection.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.