Although arterial hypertension is an important factor contributing to cardiovascular complications in coronary patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM), target values of blood pressure are rarely achieved in practice.
The aim of the study was to compare the attainment of target blood pressure in patients with DM who survived myocardial infarction (MI) (group A) with that in patients without DM (group B).
A group of 118 patients (both genders, with confirmed diagnosis of MI) was followed for three years, out of which 34 belonged to group A, and 84 to group B. After three years of secondary prevention measures, in group B patients target
blood pressure values (TA<140/90mmHg) were registered more often compared to the beginning of the study (84.8% vs 28.6%) (p<0.0001). Group A patients did not have statistically significant higher percentage of target blood pressure values (TA<130/80 mmHg) at the end of the study (11.8% vs 24.2%) (p>0.05), but the percentage of those with TA<140/90mmHg was significantly higher (57.6% vs 18.2%) (p<0.0005). Our analysis of secondary prevention indicated that 21.3% of group A and 12.7% of group B patients did not take β-blockers, but the difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05). In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in the use of ACE inhibitors between group A (84.8%) and group B (89.8%) (p>0.05).
Our study of the evaluation of secondary prevention measures in achieving target blood pressure values in patients with and without DM who survived MI demonstrated high prevalence of higher blood pressure values, especially in patients with DM, and still insufficient use of β-blockers and ACE inhibitors. Secondary prevention of cardiovascular events thus has to be intensified, particularly in patients with diabetes.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.