Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the utilization and in-hospital outcomes of surgical mitral valve replacement in Spain (2001-2015).
Adult
Aged
Bioprosthesis
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
/ diagnosis
Female
Heart Valve Diseases
/ diagnosis
Heart Valve Prosthesis
/ trends
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
/ adverse effects
Hospital Mortality
/ trends
Humans
Incidence
Male
Middle Aged
Mitral Valve
/ surgery
Postoperative Complications
/ mortality
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
/ trends
Prosthesis Design
/ trends
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Spain
/ epidemiology
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Hospitalization
In-hospital mortality
Surgical mitral valve replacement
Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Journal
Cardiovascular diabetology
ISSN: 1475-2840
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Diabetol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147637
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 05 2019
10 05 2019
Historique:
received:
06
02
2019
accepted:
02
05
2019
entrez:
12
5
2019
pubmed:
12
5
2019
medline:
31
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The main aims of this study were to examine the incidence and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) among patients with and without T2DM. We performed a retrospective study using the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database from 2001 to 2015. We included patients with SMVR codified in their discharge report. We grouped admissions by diabetes status. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare outcomes of isolated SMVR. We identified 42,937 patients (16.41% with T2DM). Incidence rates of mechanical and bioprosthetic SMVR were higher among T2DM patients than among non-T2DM patients. In both groups of patients, the use of bioprosthetic SMVR increased over time. The use of mechanical valves remained stable among T2DM patients. In T2DM and non-T2DM patients with mechanical SMVR, in hospital mortality (IHM) and MACCE decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from 2001 to 2015. T2DM patients had an overall 11.37% IHM, compared with 10.76% among non-T2DM patients (p = 0.176). Regarding MACCE figures were 14.72% vs. 14.22% (p = 0.320) after mechanical SMVR. Total crude IHM were 14.29% for T2DM patients and 15.13% for those without T2DM with bioprosthetic SMVR (p = 0.165) and 18.22 vs. 19.64%, for a MACCE (p = 0.185). Using PSM we found that the IHM and the MACCE of isolated SMVR did not differ significantly between patients with or without T2DM beside the type of valve replacement. Among T2DM patients, those who received bioprosthetic valves had higher IHM (14.29% vs. 11.37%; p = 0.003) and a higher rate of MACCE (18.22% vs. 14.72%; p = 0.001) than T2DM patients with mechanical SMVR. In Spain from 2001 to 2015, the incidence rates of hospitalization to undergo mechanical or bioprosthetic SMVR were higher among the population suffering T2DM than among the non-T2DM population. In both groups of patients the use of bioprosthetic SMVR increased over time and the use of mechanical valves remained stable in T2DM. T2DM patients have IHM and MACCE after mechanical and bioprosthetic SMVR which are not significantly different to those found among non-diabetic patients. Among T2DM patients, the crude IHM was significantly higher in those who received a bioprosthetic SMVR than those with mechanical SMVR.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The main aims of this study were to examine the incidence and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) among patients with and without T2DM.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective study using the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database from 2001 to 2015. We included patients with SMVR codified in their discharge report. We grouped admissions by diabetes status. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare outcomes of isolated SMVR.
RESULTS
We identified 42,937 patients (16.41% with T2DM). Incidence rates of mechanical and bioprosthetic SMVR were higher among T2DM patients than among non-T2DM patients. In both groups of patients, the use of bioprosthetic SMVR increased over time. The use of mechanical valves remained stable among T2DM patients. In T2DM and non-T2DM patients with mechanical SMVR, in hospital mortality (IHM) and MACCE decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from 2001 to 2015. T2DM patients had an overall 11.37% IHM, compared with 10.76% among non-T2DM patients (p = 0.176). Regarding MACCE figures were 14.72% vs. 14.22% (p = 0.320) after mechanical SMVR. Total crude IHM were 14.29% for T2DM patients and 15.13% for those without T2DM with bioprosthetic SMVR (p = 0.165) and 18.22 vs. 19.64%, for a MACCE (p = 0.185). Using PSM we found that the IHM and the MACCE of isolated SMVR did not differ significantly between patients with or without T2DM beside the type of valve replacement. Among T2DM patients, those who received bioprosthetic valves had higher IHM (14.29% vs. 11.37%; p = 0.003) and a higher rate of MACCE (18.22% vs. 14.72%; p = 0.001) than T2DM patients with mechanical SMVR.
CONCLUSIONS
In Spain from 2001 to 2015, the incidence rates of hospitalization to undergo mechanical or bioprosthetic SMVR were higher among the population suffering T2DM than among the non-T2DM population. In both groups of patients the use of bioprosthetic SMVR increased over time and the use of mechanical valves remained stable in T2DM. T2DM patients have IHM and MACCE after mechanical and bioprosthetic SMVR which are not significantly different to those found among non-diabetic patients. Among T2DM patients, the crude IHM was significantly higher in those who received a bioprosthetic SMVR than those with mechanical SMVR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31077189
doi: 10.1186/s12933-019-0866-5
pii: 10.1186/s12933-019-0866-5
pmc: PMC6511144
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
60Références
JAMA. 2015 Sep 8;314(10):1021-9
pubmed: 26348752
Can J Cardiol. 2004 Feb;20(2):155-63
pubmed: 15010737
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2018 Feb;71(2):110
pubmed: 29425605
Open Heart. 2018 Aug 1;5(2):e000820
pubmed: 30094035
Ann Thorac Surg. 2009 May;87(5):1431-7; discussion 1437-9
pubmed: 19379881
Open J Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Jul 13;9:1179065217719023
pubmed: 28757798
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jun;41(6):1268-1274
pubmed: 29618572
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014 Sep;46(3):386-97; discussion 397
pubmed: 24554075
Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Jan;91(1):42-7
pubmed: 21172483
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018 Oct 16;17(1):135
pubmed: 30326902
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Jan;155(1):105-117.e5
pubmed: 29074046
Public Health. 2009 Dec;123(12):782-6
pubmed: 19958916
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018 Apr 1;26(4):590-595
pubmed: 29228212
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2017 Nov 09;16(1):144
pubmed: 29121921
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2019 Jun;60(3):413-421
pubmed: 30698371
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jun 1;55(22):2413-26
pubmed: 20510209
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Jul 09;4(7):
pubmed: 26159363
JAMA. 2015 Apr 14;313(14):1435-42
pubmed: 25871669
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 May;149(5):1262-9.e3
pubmed: 25791947
Ann Thorac Surg. 2010 Jul;90(1):124-30
pubmed: 20609762
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2014 Oct 18;14:146
pubmed: 25326757
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017 Jul 1;25(1):18-24
pubmed: 28329172
Scand Cardiovasc J. 2018 Feb;52(1):51-57
pubmed: 29198154
Ann Thorac Surg. 2010 Nov;90(5):1479-85; discussion 1485-6
pubmed: 20971244
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001 Sep;122(3):569-77
pubmed: 11547311
N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 9;377(19):1847-1857
pubmed: 29117490
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2015 Mar;30(2):146-150
pubmed: 25584440