Heart failure in diabetes mellitus: Clinical features and prognostic implications

Oleg Gorelik*, Dorit Almoznino-Sarafian, Irena Alon, Miriam Shteinshnaider, Shulamit Chachashvily, Irma Tzur, David Modai, Natan Cohen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

We defined the prevalence and impact on survival of clinical bedside variables in 385 patients with symptomatic congestive heart failure (CHF), of whom there were 176 with and 209 without diabetes mellitus. Patients were consecutively hospitalized and admitted for various acute conditions. Following discharge all-cause mortality was recorded. Prevalence and association of various variables with mortality were statistically analyzed. Prevailing in the diabetics versus nondiabetics were younger age (p < 0.05), pulmonary edema on admission (p = 0.002), using furosemide >80 mg/day (p < 0.01) for >1 year (p < 0.01) and hyponatremia (p = 0.01). Less prevalent were chronic lung disease (p < 0.01) and cardiac arrhythmias (p = 0.001). On follow-up extending up to 60 months, diabetic patients, especially those with fasting blood glucose levels on admission ≥180 mg/dl, survived for a shorter period of time than nondiabetics (p = 0.02). Associated with increased mortality in the diabetic group were female gender (p = 0.04), furosemide ≥80 mg/day (p < 0.001) and renal dysfunction (RD; p = 0.04). The respective variables in the nondiabetics were advanced age (p < 0.001) and RD (p = 0.002). Although they were younger, diabetic patients presented more severe CHF. It is recommended that special attention should be given to diabetic females, those using higher furosemide dosages and those suffering from RD.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)161-166
Number of pages6
JournalCardiology
Volume103
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Heart failure

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Heart failure in diabetes mellitus: Clinical features and prognostic implications'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this