Evidence Hub

Impact of polyvascular disease and renal dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetes: post hoc analyses from EMPA-REG OUTCOME

S. Verma, C. Mazer, S. Inzucchi, C. Wanner, A. Ofstad, O. Johansen, I. Zwiener, J. George et al.

2020

5,630 participants

Abstract

Individuals with polyvascular disease and impaired renal function are at high risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, but this relationship is not well investigated in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Furthermore, the impact of polyvascular disease plus renal dysfunction on the risk for hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF) remains unclear.

We investigated this in a post hoc analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial in which empagliflozin reduced risk of CV death and HHF versus placebo in people with T2D and vascular disease. In addition, we explored the treatment effect of empagliflozin on CV, HF and mortality outcomes across the spectrum of baseline polyvascular disease and impaired renal function.

Patients with T2D, CV disease and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥30 ml/min/1.73 m2 received empagliflozin 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo. Vascular beds (VBs) were defined as coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and cerebrovascular disease (Fig). By use of Cox regression, we explored the association between baseline eGFR < or ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2, with or without polyvascular disease (1 vs ≥2 VBs involved), and CV death, HHF, CV death (excl. fatal stroke)/HHF, and all-cause mortality (ACM), as well as the treatment effect of empagliflozin versus placebo on these outcomes.

Patients with ≥2 VBs involved and eGFR 10 years more often (73.4% vs. 63.2% or 54.9%), and a higher HF prevalence at baseline (19.4% vs. 11.1% or 9.2%) versus those with ≥2 VBs involved and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 5,630 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free