Abstract 086: Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: International Insights From the TECOS Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Neha J Pagidipati ◽  
Ann Marie Navar ◽  
Karen S Pieper ◽  
Jennifer B Green ◽  
M. A Bethel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Latin America ◽  
North America ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Statin Therapy ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

Background: Intensive risk factor modification significantly improves outcomes for patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the degree to which secondary prevention treatment targets are achieved in international clinical practice is unknown. Methods: Attainment of 5 secondary prevention targets—aspirin use, lipid control (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <70 mg/dL or statin therapy), blood pressure control (<140 mmHg systolic, <90 mmHg diastolic), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use, and non-smoking status—was evaluated among 14,671 patients from 38 countries with diabetes and known CVD at entry into TECOS. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between individual and regional factors and target achievement. Results: Overall, 29.9% of patients with diabetes and CVD had all 5 secondary prevention measures at target. North America had the highest proportion (41.2%), whereas Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Latin America had proportions of approximately 25%. The likelihood of having individual prevention components at target also varied by region: compared with North America, individuals in all other regions were less likely to have blood pressure at goal, and individuals in Eastern Europe and Latin America were less likely to have LDL-C at target or to be on statin therapy (see Figure). Overall, blood pressure control (57.9%) had the lowest overall attainment while non-smoking status had the highest (89%). Conclusions: On a global scale, significant opportunities exist to improve the quality of cardiovascular secondary prevention care among patients with diabetes and CVD, which in turn could lead to reduced risk of downstream cardiovascular events.

scholarly journals Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Glycemic Control and Blood Pressure Control in Patients with Diabetes in Japan

2022 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-48
Author(s):  
Keisuke Endo ◽  
Takayuki Miki ◽  
Takahito Itoh ◽  
Hirofumi Kubo ◽  
Ryosuke Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Blood Pressure Control ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

Abstract P183: Minimal Impact of JAMA 2014 Guidelines on Blood Pressure Control in a Large Health System

Circulation ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 135 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex R Chang ◽  
J E Hartle ◽  
Lawrence Appel ◽  
Morgan Grams
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Health System ◽  
Blood Pressure Control ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
System Level ◽  
Minimal Impact ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Using Data

Background: JAMA 2014 blood pressure (BP) guidelines raised BP goals for adults older than 60 years (from <140/90 to <150/90) and adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or diabetes (from < 130/80 to <140/90). It is unknown whether there were changes in BP control at the health system level after guideline publication. Methods: Using data from 288,962 adults receiving primary care in the Geisinger Health System, we compared blood pressure control over 1-year time periods before and after the February 2014 publication of the JAMA 2014 BP guidelines (i.e. Aug 2012-July 2013 vs Aug 2014-July 2015). Mixed effects models were used, allowing intercepts to vary by individual, adjusted for age, gender, and race. Results: Mean age was 49.2 ± 18.3 y, 56.7% were female, and 2.5% were black. Prevalence of diagnoses for hypertension, diabetes, and CKD were 40.0%, 15.1%, and 11.4%, respectively. Overall, distributions of systolic BP were similar before and after JAMA 2014 BP guidelines (Figure). BP control <140/90 was also similar between the two periods for adults 18-59 y (90.9% vs. 90.3%; OR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02; p=0.3), adults ≥ 60 y (81.8% vs 82.2%; OR 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.03; p=0.05), and adults with diabetes (83.2% vs. 82.7%; OR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02; p=0.7) whereas BP control <140/90 improved slightly for adults with CKD (81.7% vs. 82.1%; OR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04-1.08; p<0.001). BP control <130/80 was marginally worse after JAMA 2014 BP guidelines in patients with diabetes (53.5% vs. 51.8%; OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-0.99; p=0.01). Trends were similar in analyses only including patients with hypertension diagnoses (overall 78.6% vs. 78.2%, OR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02; p=0.5), and when using a goal of < 130/80 for patients with CKD (53.3% vs. 53.5%; OR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04-1.08; p<0.001). Conclusion: There was little change in blood pressure control in a large integrated health system after publication of the JAMA 2014 BP guidelines. These findings are reassuring given recent findings from the SPRINT trial supporting lower BP goals.

scholarly journals Regional, sex, and age differences in diagnostic testing among participants in the NAVIGATE-ESUS trial

2019 ◽  
pp. 174749301988452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Arauz ◽  
Fabiola Serrano ◽  
Lesly A Pearce ◽  
Scott E Kasner ◽  
Sebastian F Ameriso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
North America ◽  
East Asia ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Mr Angiogram ◽  
Sex And Age Differences

Background and aim The diagnosis of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is based on excluding other more likely stroke etiologies, and therefore diagnostic testing plays an especially crucial role. Our objective was to compare the diagnostic testing by region, sex, and age among the participants of NAVIGATE-ESUS trial. Methods Participants were grouped according to five global regions (North America, Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and East Asia), age (<60, 60–74, and >75 years), and sex. Frequencies of each diagnostic test within areas of echocardiography, cardiac rhythm monitoring, and arterial imaging were described and compared across groups. A multivariable logistic regression model for each diagnostic test was fit to assess the independent influence of each of region, age, and sex and likelihood of testing. Results We included 6985 patients in the analysis (918 from North America; 746 from Latin America; 2853 from Western Europe; 1118 from Eastern Europe; 1350 from East Asia). Average age (highest in Western Europe (69 years), lowest in Eastern Europe (65 years)), % females (highest in Latin America (44%) and lowest in East Asia (31%)), and use of each diagnostic test varied significantly across regions. Region, but not sex, was independently associated with use of each diagnostic test examined. Transesophageal echocardiography and either CT or MR angiogram were more often used in younger patients. Conclusion Diagnostic testing differed by region, and less frequently by age, but not by sex. Our findings reflect the existing variations in global practice in diagnostic testing in ESUS patients.

scholarly journals Comparison of Cardiovascular Disease Risks of Actual and Perceptions of Men’s that 40-65 Years Old

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
İbrahim Topuz ◽  
Sebahat Gozum
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Risk Reducing ◽  
Very High

Abstract Background Turkey is among the top countries in Europe in coronary mortality in the 45-74 age range. The highest death due to disorders of the circulatory system (50.8%) that is Amasya province. Objective Determine related factors and to compare with actual and perceived cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks of men aged 40-65 living in Amasya. Methods The sample size of cross-sectional and analytical study consisted of 400 people who met the inclusion criteria. Actual CVD risks of men were calculated using HeartScore. Age, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol measured by blood taken from the capillary and smoking status were used to calculate CVD risk. Actual CVD risk in next decade has been calculated as low, medium, high or very high. Perceived CVD risk in next decade were identified by participants as low, medium, high and very high responses. They also questioned why evaluation of perceived risk. Results It was determined whereas 8.3% of the males had high, 52.5% had a very high level of CVD risk. The main variables affecting actual CVD risk; diastolic blood pressure, BMI and physical activity. 13.3% of males perceived CVD risks at high and 8% at very high. The main variables affecting perceived CVD risk; age and DM. It was found that 48% and 23.8% of males perceived CVD risks lower and higher than actual CVD risk while 28.2% were accurate. Those who perceived CVD risk at a moderate, high and very high think that this is caused by diseases that increase the risk of CVD and smoking. Conclusions Approximately 1/2 men has very high risk of CVD. It was determined that 1/2 men perceived risks are lower with false optimism and couldn’t accurately identify risks of people older and with diabetes. Key messages It can be ensured that develop risk reducing behaviors and individuals with high risk of CVD can raise their awareness. The risk perceptions of males in the very high-risk group from the past to the present are important because they affect their actual risks and risk-reducing behaviors.

scholarly journals EFFECTS OF INTENSIVE BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL IN PATIENTS WITH EVIDENT CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. A1914
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios ◽  
Charalambos Vlachopoulos ◽  
Konstantinos Aznaourids ◽  
Nikolaos Ioakeimidis ◽  
Panagiotis Xaplanteris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Blood Pressure Control ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
Intensive Blood Pressure
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document