26 research outputs found
Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in diabetes: clinical impact, assessment, diagnosis, and management
The Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) Subcommittee of the Toronto Consensus Panel on Diabetic Neuropathy worked to update CAN guidelines, with regard to epidemiology, clinical impact, diagnosis, usefulness of CAN testing, and management. CAN is the impairment of cardiovascular autonomic control in the setting of diabetes after exclusion of other causes. The prevalence of confirmed CAN is around 20%, and increases up to 65% with age and diabetes duration. Established risk factors for CAN are glycaemic control in type 1 and a combination of hypertension, dyslipidaemia, obesity, and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes. CAN is a risk marker of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, and possibly a progression promoter of diabetic nephropathy. Criteria for CAN diagnosis and staging are: (1) one abnormal cardiovagal test result identifies possible or early CAN; (2) at least two abnormal cardiovagal test results are required for definite or confirmed CAN; and (3) the presence of orthostatic hypotension in addition to abnormal heart rate test results identifies severe or advanced CAN. Progressive stages of CAN are associated with increasingly worse prognosis. CAN assessment is relevant in clinical practice for (1) diagnosis of CAN clinical forms, (2) detection and tailored treatment of CAN clinical correlates (e.g. tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, nonâdipping, QT interval prolongation), (3) risk stratification for diabetic complications and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and (4) modulation of targets of diabetes therapy. Evidence on the costâeffectiveness of CAN testing is lacking. Apart from the preventive role of intensive glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes, recommendations cannot be made for most therapeutic approaches to CAN. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86954/1/1239_ftp.pd
Osteoarthritis and mortality: A prospective cohort study and systematic review with meta-analysis
Objectives: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability, but the relationship with premature mortality remains uncertain. We aimed to investigate the relationship between OA and mortality from any cause and from cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Methods: Electronic literature databases searches were conducted to identify prospective studies comparing mortality in a sample of people with and without OA. Risk of all-cause and CVD mortality were summarized using adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for joint specific (hand, hip, and knee) and joint non-specific OA. New data from the Progetto Veneto Anziani (PRO.V.A.) study were also included. Results: From the PRO.V.A. study (N 1â4 2927), there was no significant increase in mortality risk for participants with any joint OA (N 1â4 1858) compared to non-OA (all-cause, HR 1â4 0.95, 95% CI: 0.77â1.15 and CVD, HR 1â4 1.12, 95% CI: 0.82â1.54). On meta-analysis, seven studies (OA 1â4 10,018/non-OA 1â4 18,541), with a median 12-year follow-up, reported no increased risk of any-cause mortality in those with OA (HR 1â4 1.10, 95% CI: 0.97â1.25). After removing data on hand OA, a significant association between OA and mortality was observed (HR 1â4 1.18, 95% CI: 1.08â1.28). There was a significant higher risk of overall mortality for (1) studies conducted in Europe, (2) patients with multi-joint OA; and (3) a radiological diagnosis of OA. OA was associated with significantly higher CVD mortality (HR 1â4 1.21, 95% CI: 1.10â1.34).
Conclusions: People with OA are at increased risk of death due to CVD. The relationship with overall mortality is less clear and may be moderated by the presence of hand OA