Search

Background: The effect of different classes of antihypertensive drugs on incident diabetes mellitus is controversial because traditional meta-analyses are hindered by heterogeneity across trials and the absence of trials comparing angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB). We therefore undertook a network meta-analysis, which accounts for both direct and indirect comparisons to assess the effects of antihypertensive agents on incident diabetes., Methods: We undertook a systematic review up to Sept 15, 2006, and identified 48 randomised groups of 22 clinical trials with 143,153 participants who did not have diabetes at randomisation and so were eligible for inclusion in our analysis. 17 trials enrolled patients with hypertension, three enrolled high-risk patients, and one enrolled those with heart failure. The main outcome was the proportion of patients who developed diabetes., Findings: Initial drug therapy used in the trials (and the number of patients with diabetes of the total number at risk) included: an ARB (1189 of 14,185, or 8.38%), ACE inhibitor (1618 of 22,941, or 7.05%), calcium-channel blocker (CCB, 2791 of 38,607, or 7.23%), placebo (1686 of 24,767, or 6.81%), beta blocker (2705 of 35,745, or 7.57%), or diuretic (998 of 18,699, or 5.34%). With an initial diuretic as the standard of comparison (eight groups), the degree of incoherence (a measure of how closely the entire network fits together) was small (omega=0.000017, eight degrees of freedom). The odds ratios were: ARB (five groups) 0.57 (95% CI 0.46-0.72, p<0.0001); ACE inhibitor (eight groups) 0.67 (0.56-0.80, p<0.0001); CCB (nine groups): 0.75 (0.62-0.90, p=0.002); placebo (nine groups) 0.77 (0.63-0.94, p = 0.009); beta blocker (nine groups) 0.90 (0.75-1.09, p=0.30). These estimates changed little in many sensitivity analyses., Interpretation: The association of antihypertensive drugs with incident diabetes is therefore lowest for ARB and ACE inhibitors followed by CCB and placebo, beta blockers and diuretics in rank order.

Background: The HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device has been approved for use as destination therapy. Thus, the study of quality-of-life outcomes, as well as morbidity and mortality, is imperative. The purpose of our study was to describe change with time (from 1 month to 1 year) in patients who received a HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation and to identify quality-of-life predictors of survival after left ventricular assist device implantation., Methods: A nonrandom sample of 78 patients who received a HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device (primarily middle-aged, white married males) who had quality-of-life data at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, or 12 months after implant was the subject of this report. The sample size decreased with time primarily because of heart transplantation. Patients completed the following booklets of questionnaires: Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, and Sickness Impact Profile. Analyses included both descriptive analyses and modeling procedures (mixed-effects models and Cox proportional hazards models)., Results: Quality-of-life outcomes were fairly good and stable from 1 month to 1 year after HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device implantation. Both positive and negative changes were detected in all quality-of-life domains (physical and occupational function, social interaction, somatic sensation, and psychological state) after left ventricular assist device insertion. Items from the physical domain of quality of life, specifically walking and dressing oneself, were significantly associated with the risk of dying after left ventricular assist device implantation., Conclusions: Identifying poor quality-of-life outcomes within 1 year after left ventricular assist device implantation provides direction to develop strategies to improve outcomes. Physical and occupational rehabilitation, psychosocial intervention, and monitoring symptom distress and physical disability may contribute to improved quality-of-life outcomes and survival after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Background: No studies have analyzed quality of life (QOL) from before to after heart transplantation in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Therefore, the purpose of this longitudinal, multi-site study was to compare QOL outcomes of patients listed for heart transplantation who required a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) at 3 months after implantation of an LVAD vs 3 months after heart transplantation., Methods: A non-random sample of 40 patients (predominantly middle-aged, married, white men), who had paired data at both 3 months after LVAD implantation and 3 months after heart transplantation, were investigated. Patients completed self-report questionnaires (with acceptable reliability and validity) at both time periods, including the Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, Sickness Impact Profile, LVAD Stressor Scale (completed only after LVAD implant), Heart Transplant Stressor Scale (completed only after heart transplant) and Jalowiec Coping Scale. Descriptive analyses and comparative analyses using paired t-tests were performed with statistical significance set at 0.01., Results: Patients were significantly more satisfied with their lives overall and with their health and functioning at 3 months after heart transplantation as compared with 3 months after LVAD implantation. Mobility, self-care ability, physical ability and overall functional ability improved from 3 months after LVAD implant to 3 months after heart transplant. There was significantly less symptom distress after LVAD implant as compared with after heart transplant for the neurologic, dermatologic and physical sub-scales. Work/school/financial stress was significantly lower after heart transplant vs after LVAD implant. In contrast, 2 other areas of stress were significantly lower after LVAD implant vs after heart transplant: self-care stress and hospital/clinic-related stress., Conclusions: Differences were found in QOL outcomes at 3 months after LVAD implant as compared with 3 months after heart transplant. Our findings point out specific areas of concern with respect to QOL after LVAD implant and post-transplant, some of which are amenable to health-care provider interventions.

Background: Quality of life (QOL) outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation from before to after hospital discharge have been examined only in a very small sample of patients. The purposes of this study are to describe change in QOL from before to after hospital discharge in LVAD patients and to determine whether being discharged with an LVAD predicts better QOL than being hospitalized with an LVAD., Methods: A non-random sample of 62 LVAD patients (approximately 50 years old, male, white, married, fairly well-educated) completed self-report questionnaires at >or=2 timepoints post-implant. The questionnaires (Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, Sickness Impact Profile, LVAD Stressor Scale, Jalowiec Coping Scale), which were collated into booklets, had acceptable reliability and validity. Longitudinal analyses were performed in 2 steps using 1-sample t-tests and linear mixed effects modeling., Results: Perception of QOL and health status were fairly good both before and after discharge of LVAD patients. Discharge predicted increased satisfaction with socioeconomic areas of life; decreased overall and psychologic stress and stress related to family and friends, self-care and work/school/finances; and decreased physical and self-care disability., Conclusions: QOL outcomes improved from before to after hospital discharge in LVAD patients awaiting heart transplantation. As LVADs potentially become available as destination therapy, in addition to being successful bridges to heart transplantation, QOL outcomes will become more important to study.