| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
|
|
| 33. |
|
|
| 34. |
|
|
| 35. |
|
|
| 36. |
|
|
| 37. |
- Brusich, S, et al.
(författare)
-
Croatian National Data and Comparison with European Practice: Data from the Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Survey II Multicenter Registry
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Cardiology research and practice. - : Hindawi Limited. - 2090-8016 .- 2090-0597. ; 2018, s. 3479846-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims. The Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) Survey II was conducted between October 2015 and December 2016 and included data from 11088 CRT implantations from 42 countries. The survey’s aim was to report on current European CRT practice. The aim of this study was to compare the Croatian national CRT practice with the European data. Methods. Five centres from Croatia recruited consecutive patients, in a 15-month period, who underwent CRT implantation, primary or an upgrade. Data were collected prospectively by using online database. Results. A total of 115 patients were included in Croatia, which is 33.2% of all CRT implants in Croatia during the study period (total n=346). Median age of the study population was 67 (61–73) years, and 21.2% were women. Primary heart failure (HF) aetiology was nonischemic in 61.1% of patients, and HF with wide QRS was the most common indication for the implantation (73.5%). 80% of patients had complete left bundle branch block, and over two-third had QRS ≥150 ms. Device-related adverse events were recorded in 4.3% of patients. When compared with European countries, Croatian patients were significantly younger (67 vs. 70 years, p=0.012), had similar rate of comorbidities with the exception of higher prevalence of hypertension. Croatian patients significantly more often received CRT-pacemaker when compared with European population (58.3 vs. 29.9%, OR 3.27, 95%CI 2.25–4.74, p<0.001). Conclusion. Our data indicate strict selection of patients among HF population and adherence to guidelines with exception of higher proportion of CRT-pacemaker implantation. This is likely to be influenced by healthcare organization and reimbursement issues in Croatia.
|
|
| 38. |
|
|
| 39. |
|
|
| 40. |
- Cosmi, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment with insulin is associated with worse outcome in patients with chronic heart failure and diabetes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842. ; 20:5, s. 888-895
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Up to one-third of patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure (HF) are treated with insulin. As insulin causes sodium retention and hypoglycaemia, its use might be associated with worse outcomes. Methods and results We examined two datasets: 24 012 patients with HF from four large randomized trials and an administrative database of 4 million individuals, 103 857 of whom with HF. In the former, survival was examined using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for baseline variables and separately for propensity scores. Fine-Gray competing risk regression models were used to assess the risk of hospitalization for HF. For the latter, a case-control nested within a population-based cohort study was conducted with propensity score. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus at study entry ranged from 25.5% to 29.5% across trials. Insulin alone or in combination with oral hypoglycaemic drugs was prescribed at randomization to 24.4% to 34.5% of the patients with diabetes. The rates of death from any cause and hospitalization for HF were higher in patients with vs. without diabetes, and highest of all in patients prescribed insulin [propensity score pooled hazard ratio for all-cause mortality 1.27 (1.16-1.38), for HF hospitalization 1.23 (1.13-1.33)]. In the administrative registry, insulin prescription was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death [odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.87-2.19] and rehospitalization for HF (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.32-1.53). Conclusions Whether insulin use is associated with poor outcomes in HF should be investigated further with controlled trials, as should the possibility that there may be safer alternative glucose-lowering treatments for patients with HF and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
|
|
