Implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization treatment in people with type 2 diabetes: a comparison with age- and sex matched controls from the general population
Authors' conclusion
Although the proportion of VT/VF was low, patients with T2DM had a higher prevalence of these conditions and increased risk for treatment with CIED compared to controls. This underlines the importance of recognizing that T2DM patients have an increased need of CIED.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T2D included 1/1/1998–31/12/2012, followed until 31/12/2013, and matched general-population controls, Swedenmatched cohort
- Participants
- 416,162 vs 2,081,087
- Exposure
- T2D vs matched controls from the general population
- T2DMn = 416,162
- Controlsn = 2,081,087reference
- Outcome
- Risk of receiving a CIED (ICD, CRT-P, CRT-D) during follow-up
- Follow-up
- Followed until 31/12/2013
Methodological detailsregistry-based, matched for age, sex and living area, multivariable Cox regression
- Registry-based
- Matched for age, sex and living area
- Multivariable Cox regression
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), adjusted HR
1.32 [1.21-1.45] (95% CI)
CRT-P, adjusted HR
1.74 [1.55-1.95] (95% CI)
CRT-D, adjusted HR
1.69 [1.43-1.99] (95% CI)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Ventricular fibrillation prevalence · baseline
Ventricular tachycardia prevalence · baseline
Factors associated with receiving cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)
- Blood-pressure and lipid-lowering therapies were independent risk factors; female sex was protective
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →