Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the utilization and in-hospital outcomes of surgical mitral valve replacement in Spain (2001–2015)

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 18 - Trang 1-13 - 2019
Ana López-de-Andrés1, Javier de Miguel-Díez2, Nuria Muñoz-Rivas3, Valentín Hernández-Barrera1, Manuel Méndez-Bailón4, José M. de Miguel-Yanes5, Rodrigo Jiménez-García1
1Preventive Medicine and Public Health Teaching and Research Unit, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Spain
2Internal Medicine Department, Hospital Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain
3Respiratory Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM), Madrid, Spain
4Internal Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), Madrid, Spain
5Internal Medicine Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), Madrid, Spain

Tóm tắt

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.

Tài liệu tham khảo

van der Merwe J, Casselman F. Mitral valve replacement-current and future perspectives. Open J Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;9:1179065217719023. Gammie JS, Sheng S, Griffith BP, Peterson ED, Rankin JS, O’Brien SM, et al. Trends in mitral valve surgery in the United States: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:9. Berzingi C, Badhwar V, Alqahtani F, Aljohani S, Chaker Z, Alkhouli M. Contemporary outcomes of isolated bioprothestic mitral valve replacement for mitral regurgitation. Open Heart. 2018;5:e000820. Menke A, Casagrande S, Geiss L, Cowie CC. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among adults in the United States, 1988–2012. JAMA. 2015;314:1021–9. Bakaeen FG, Shroyer AL, Zenati MA, Badhwar V, Thourani VH, Gammie JS, et al. Mitral valve surgery in the US veterans administration health system: 10-year outcomes and trends. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155(105–117):e5. Hassan A, Quan H, Newman A, Ghali WA, Hirsch GM, Canadian cardiovascular outcomes research team. Outcomes after aortic and mitral valve replacement surgery in Canada: 1994/95 to 1999/2000. Can J Cardiol. 2004;20:155–63. Chen Y, Wright S, Westfall R. Reversed gender distribution of diabetes in Northern Canada. Public Health. 2009;123:782–6. Myllykangas ME, Aittokallio JM, Pietilä A, Salomaa VV, Gunn JM, Kiviniemi TO, et al. Population trends in mitral valve surgery in Finland between 1997 and 2014: the finnish CVD register. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2018;52:51–7. Halkos ME, Kilgo P, Lattouf OM, Puskas JD, Cooper WA, Guyton RA, et al. The effect of diabetes mellitus on in-hospital and long-term outcomes after heart valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90(1):24–30. López-de-Andrés A, Perez-Farinos N, de Miguel-Díez J, Hernández-Barrera V, Méndez-Bailón M, de Miguel-Yanes JM, et al. Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the utilization and in-hospital outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in Spain (2001–2015). Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17:135. Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos, Hospitales del INSALUD. http://www.ingesa.msssi.gob.es/estadEstudios/documPublica/CMBD-2001.htm. Accessed 16 Jan 2019. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83. Newman JD, Wilcox T, Smilowitz NR, Berger JS. Influence of diabetes on trends in perioperative cardiovascular events. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:1268–74. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2018;71:110. Siregar S, de Heer F, Groenwold RH, Versteegh MI, Bekkers JA, Brinkman ES, et al. Trends and outcomes of valve surgery: 16-year results of Netherlands Cardiac Surgery National Database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46:386–97. Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, Lingala B, Patrick WL, Fischbein MP, et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1847–57. Reineke DC, Heinisch PP, Winkler B, Englberger L, Carrel TP. Mitral valve replacement in patients under 65 years of age: mechanical or biological valves? Curr Opin Cardiol. 2015;30:146–50. Ribeiro AH, Wender OC, de Almeida AS, Soares LE, Picon PD. Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2014;14:146. Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149:1262–9. Cen YY, Glower DD, Landolfo K, Lowe JE, Davis RD, Wolfe WG, et al. Comparison of survival after mitral valve replacement with biologic and mechanical valves in 1139 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;122:569–77. Chikwe J, Chiang YP, Egorova NN, Itagaki S, Adams DH. Survival and outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA. 2015;313:1435–42. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults an update. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2413–26. Daneshmand MA, Milano CA, Rankin JS, Honeycutt EF, Shaw LK, Davis RD, et al. Influence of patient age on procedural selection in mitral valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:1479–85. Mendez-Bailon M, Lorenzo-Villalba N, Muñoz-Rivas N, de Miguel-Yanes JM, De Miguel-Diez J, Comín-Colet J, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement among hospitalized patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain (2014–2015). Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2017;16:144. de Miguel-Díez J, López-de-Andrés A, Hernández-Barrera V, de Miguel-Yanes JM, Méndez-Bailón M, Muñoz-Rivas N, et al. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is not associated with worse in-hospital outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement in Spain (2001–2015). J Cardiovasc Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0021-9509.19.10747-1. Hartrumpf M, Kuehnel RU, Albes JM. The obesity paradox is still there: a risk analysis of over 15 000 cardiosurgical patients based on body mass index. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017;25:18–24. Rapetto F, Bruno VD, King M, Benedetto U, Caputo M, Angelini GD, et al. Impact of body mass index on outcomes following mitral surgery: does an obesity paradox exist? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018;26:590–5. Johnson AP, Parlow JL, Whitehead M, Xu J, Rohland S, Milne B. Body mass index, outcomes, and mortality following cardiac surgery in Ontario, Canada. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(7):e002140. Stamou SC, Nussbaum M, Stiegel RM, Reames MK, Skipper ER, Robicsek F, et al. Effect of body mass index on outcomes after cardiac surgery: is there an obesity paradox? Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:42–7.