Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus on short- and long-term mortality after coronary artery bypass surgery
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a frequent co-morbidity among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of DM on the early- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent isolated CABG. We performed an observational cohort...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cardiovascular diabetology 2018-11, Vol.17 (1), p.151-151, Article 151 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a frequent co-morbidity among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of DM on the early- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent isolated CABG.
We performed an observational cohort study in a large tertiary medical center over a period of 11 years. All data from patients who had undergone isolated CABG surgery between 2004 and 2014 were obtained from our departmental database. The study population included 2766 patients who were divided into two groups: Group I (1553 non-diabetic patients), and Group II (1213 patients suffering from type 2 DM). Group II patients were then divided into two subgroups: subgroup IIA (981 patients treated with oral antihyperglycemic medications) and subgroup IIB (232 insulin-treated patients with or without additional oral antihyperglycemic drugs). In-hospital, 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year mortality outcome variables were evaluated. Mean follow-up was 97 ± 41 months.
In-hospital mortality was similar between Group I and Group II patients (1.87% vs. 2.31%, p = 0.422) and between the subgroups IIA and IIB (2.14% vs. 3.02%, p = 0.464). Long-term mortality (1, 3, 5 and 10 years) was higher in Group II (DM type 2) compared with Group I (non-diabetic patients) (5.3% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.038; 9.3% vs. 5.6%, p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1475-2840 1475-2840 |
DOI: | 10.1186/s12933-018-0796-7 |