Conduction disturbances in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in two large independent nationwide and international databases
Authors' conclusion
T2D is independently associated with conduction disturbances and a higher incidence of coronary events compared to no DM, whereas T1D does not appear to confer the same risk. This suggests distinct pathophysiological mechanisms and the possible need for enhanced monitoring in T2D patients.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with T1D or T2D and matched non-diabetic controls in the French PMSI nationwide hospital database and the international TriNetX network (>120 healthcare organizations)matched cohorts
- Exposure
- T2D or T1D vs no DM
- Outcome
- Conduction disturbances
Methodological detailstwo independent databases, 1:1 propensity score matching, matched cohorts, T2D: > 440,000 patients (PMSI) and > 900,000 (TriNetX); T1D: > 20,000 patients (TriNetX)
- Two independent databases
- 1:1 propensity score matching
- Matched cohorts
- T2D: > 440,000 patients (PMSI) and > 900,000 (TriNetX); T1D: > 20,000 patients (TriNetX)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
T2D vs No DMHazard ratio (CI)
Atrioventricular block, PMSI
1.22(1.19–1.25)
Atrioventricular block, TriNetX
1.50(1.45–1.55)
Left BBB, PMSI
1.12(1.08–1.17)
Left BBB, TriNetX
1.50(1.47–1.54)
Right BBB, PMSI
1.14(1.09–1.18)
Right BBB, TriNetX
1.38(1.34–1.43)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | HR (CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| MIT2Dvs No DMPMSI | 1.29 (1.25–1.32) | |
| MIT2Dvs No DMTriNetX | 2.14 (2.08–2.19) | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Conduction disturbances in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in two large independent nationwide and international databases. Diabetes Metab. Published 24 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →