ABSTRACT
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The role of HbA1c variability in the progression of diabetic kidney disease is unclear, with most studies to date performed in White populations and limited data on its role in predicting advanced kidney outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate if long-term intra-individual HbA1c variability is a risk factor for kidney disease progression (defined as an eGFR decline of ≥50% from baseline with a final eGFR of <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2) in an ethnically heterogeneous cohort of people with type 1 diabetes with a preserved eGFR ≥45 ml/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline. METHODS: Electronic health record data from people attending outpatient clinics between 2004 and 2018 in two large university hospitals in London were collected. HbA1c variability was assessed using three distinct methods: (1) SD of HbA1c (SD-HbA1c); (2) visit-adjusted SD (adj-HbA1c): SD-HbA1c/ân/(n-1), where n is the number of HbA1c measurements per participant; and (3) CV (CV-HbA1c): SD-HbA1c/mean-HbA1c. All participants had six or more follow-up HbA1c measurements. The eGFR was measured using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation and clinical/biochemical results from routine care were extracted from electronic health records. RESULTS: In total, 3466 participants (50% female, 78% White, 13% African Caribbean, 3% Asian and 6% of mixed heritage or self-reporting as 'other') were followed for a median (IQR) of 8.2 (4.2-11.6) years. Of this cohort, 249 (7%) showed kidney disease progression. Higher HbA1c variability was independently associated with a higher risk of kidney disease progression, with HRs (95% CIs) of 7.76 (4.54, 13.26), 2.62 (1.75, 3.94) and 5.46 (3.40, 8.79) (lowest vs highest HbA1c variability quartile) for methods 1-3, respectively. Increasing age, baseline HbA1c, systolic BP and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio were also associated with kidney disease progression (p<0.05 for all). African Caribbean ethnicity was associated with an increased risk of kidney disease progression (HR [95% CI] 1.47 [1.09, 1.98], 1.76 [1.32, 2.36] and 1.57 [1.17, 2.12] for methods 1-3, respectively) and this effect was independent of glycaemic variability and other traditional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: We observed an independent association between HbA1c variability, evaluated using three distinct methods, and significant kidney disease progression in a multi-ethnic type 1 diabetes cohort. Further studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms that may explain our results and evaluate if HbA1c variability is a modifiable risk factor for preventing diabetic kidney disease progression.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: Specialist cardiology care is associated with a prognostic benefit in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) admitted with decompensated HF. However, up to one third of patients admitted with HF and normal ejection fraction (HFnEF) do not receive specialist cardiology input. Whether this has prognostic implications is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data on patients hospitalized with HFnEF from two tertiary centres were analysed. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality during follow-up. The secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A total of 1413 patients were included in the study. Of these, 23% (n = 322) did not receive in-hospital specialist cardiology input. Patients seen by a cardiologist were less likely to have hypertension (73% vs. 79%, P = 0.03) and respiratory co-morbidities (25% vs. 31%, P = 0.02) compared with those who did not receive specialist input. Similarly, clinical presentation was more severe for those who received specialist input (New York Heart Association III/IV 83% vs. 75% respectively, P = 0.003; moderate-to-severe peripheral oedema 65% vs. 54%, P < 0.001). Medical management was similar, except for a higher use of diuretics (90% vs. 86%, P = 0.04) and a longer length of stay for patients who received specialist input (9 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Long-term outcomes were comparable between patients who received specialist input and those who did not. However, specialist input was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 0.19, confidence interval 0.09-0.43, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital cardiology specialist input has no long-term prognostic advantage in patients with HFnEF but is independently associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.
Subject(s)
Cardiology , Heart Failure , Humans , Prognosis , Stroke Volume , HospitalizationABSTRACT
AIMS: Patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) had worse in-hospital outcomes during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, their long-term outcomes are unknown. We describe long-term outcomes among patients who survived to hospital discharge compared with patients hospitalized in 2019 from two referral centers in London during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 512 patients who survived their hospitalization for acute HF in two South London referral centers between 7 January and 14 June 2020 were included in the study and compared with 725 patients from the corresponding period in 2019. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The demographic characteristics of patients admitted in 2020 were similar to the 2019 cohort. Median (IQR) follow-up was 622 (348-691) days. All-cause mortality after discharge remained significantly higher for patients admitted in 2020 compared with the equivalent period in 2019 (P < 0.01), which may relate to observed differences in place of care with fewer patients being managed on specialist cardiology wards during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization for HF during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with higher all-cause mortality among patients who survived to discharge. Further studies are necessary to identify predictors of these adverse outcomes to improve outpatient management during a critical period in the management of acute HF.
