Archives of Medical Science (Jan 2020)

Treatment goal attainment for secondary prevention in coronary patients with or without diabetes mellitus – Polish multicenter study POLASPIRE

  • Maciej Haberka,
  • Piotr Jankowski,
  • Dariusz A. Kosior,
  • Małgorzata Szpakowicz,
  • Karolina Szóstak-Janiak,
  • Paweł Kozieł,
  • Agnieszka Krzykwa,
  • Magda Łapińska,
  • Małgorzata Setny,
  • Karol Kamiński,
  • Aldona Kubica,
  • Dirk de Bacquer,
  • Guy de Backer,
  • Kornelia Kotseva,
  • David Wood,
  • Andrzej Pająk,
  • Danuta Czarnecka,
  • Zbigniew Gąsior

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2020.92558
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 2
pp. 305 – 312

Abstract

Read online

Introduction Cardiovascular disease is still a leading cause of death in Poland and across Europe. The aim of this study was to assess the attainment of the main treatment goals for secondary cardiovascular prevention in coronary patients with or without diabetes mellitus (DM) in Poland. Material and methods The study group included 1026 patients (65.5 ±9 y.o.; males: 72%) included at least 6 months after the index hospitalisation for myocardial infarction, unstable angina, elective percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery. The target and treatment goals were defined according to the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular prevention. Results Patients with DM (n = 332; 32%) were slightly older compared to non-diabetic (n = 694) individuals (67.2 ±7 vs. 64.6 ±9 years old; p < 0.0001). The DM goal was achieved in 196 patients (60%). The rate of primary (LDL: 51% vs. 35%; p < 0.0001) and secondary (non-HDL: 56% vs. 48%; p < 0.02) goal attainment was higher in DM(+) compared to DM(–) patients. The rate of target blood pressure was lower in DM(+) than in normoglycemic patients (52% vs. 61% at < 140/90 mm Hg, p < 0.01. As expected, goal achievement of normal weight (9.5% vs. 19%; p < 0.0001) and waist circumference (7% vs. 15%; p < 0.001) was lower in diabetic patients and the rate of regular physical activity was similar (DM+ 12% vs. DM– 14%; p = ns). Finally, there was no difference in active smokers (DM+ 23% vs. DM– 22%; p = ns). Conclusions Great majority of Polish patients in secondary prevention do not achieve treatment goals. Although lipid goals attainment is better in DM and the rate of smokers is similar, the management of all risk factors needs to be improved.

Keywords