Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Structured diabetes care routines in cardiac rehabilitation are associated with increased diabetes detection and improved treatment after myocardial infarction: a nationwide observational study

Cardiovascular Diabetology volume 23, Article number: 330 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Despite the detrimental impact of abnormal glucose metabolism on cardiovascular prognosis after myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes is both underdiagnosed and undertreated. We investigated associations between structured diabetes care routines in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and detection and treatment of diabetes at one-year post-MI.

Methods

Center-level data was derived from the Perfect-CR survey, which evaluated work routines applied at Swedish CR centers (n = 76). Work routines involving diabetes care included: (1) routine assessment of fasting glucose and/or HbA1c, (2) routine use of oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), (3) having regular case rounds with diabetologists, and (4) whether glucose-lowering medication was adjusted by CR physicians. Patient-level data was obtained from the national MI registry SWEDEHEART (n = 7601, 76% male, mean age 62.6 years) and included all post-MI patients irrespective of diabetes diagnosis. Using mixed-effects regression we estimated differences between patients exposed versus. not exposed to the four above-mentioned diabetes care routines. Outcomes were newly detected diabetes and the proportion of patients receiving oral glucose-lowering medication at one-year post-MI.

Results

Routine assessment of fasting glucose/HbA1c was performed at 63.2% (n = 48) of the centers, while 38.2% (n = 29) reported using OGTT for detecting glucose abnormalities. Glucose-lowering medication adjusted by CR physicians (n = 13, 17.1%) or regular case rounds with diabetologists (n = 7, 9.2%) were less frequently reported. In total, 4.0% of all patients (n = 304) were diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up and 17.9% (n = 1361) were on oral glucose-lowering treatment one-year post-MI. Routine use of OGTT was associated with a higher rate of newly detected diabetes at one-year (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.62 [1.26, 1.98], p = 0.0007). At one-year a higher proportion of patients were receiving oral glucose-lowering medication at centers using OGTT (1.22 [1.07, 1.37], p = 0.0046) and where such medication was adjusted by CR physicians (1.31 [1.06, 1.56], p = 0.0155). Compared to having none of the structured diabetes care routines, the more routines implemented the higher the rate of newly detected diabetes (from 0 routines: 2.7% to 4 routines: 6.3%; p for trend = 0.0014).

Conclusions

Having structured routines for diabetes care implemented within CR can improve detection and treatment of diabetes post-MI. A cluster-randomized trial is warranted to ascertain causality.

Background

Abnormal glucose metabolism is common in patients with ischemic heart disease and is associated with a considerably higher risk of mortality and recurrent cardiovascular events [1]. The reported prevalence of diabetes mellitus in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) is 20–25% [2,3,4]. Further two-thirds of patients with MI without known diabetes have undiagnosed diabetes or pre-diabetes (impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance) when tested via fasting glucose, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) [5]. Both patients with diabetes and those with pre-diabetes have a worse prognosis than patients with normal glucose metabolism [6, 7].

Despite improvements in diagnostic methods, a considerable proportion of MI patients with diabetes and pre-diabetes remain undiagnosed and therefore also untreated [5, 8]. In recent years, new treatments (e.g., glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RA] and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT-2] inhibitors provide additional prognostic benefit beyond optimal metabolic and risk factor control [9]. Given this background, there is a need to improve screening for, and treatment of, abnormal glucose metabolism in patients with MI to improve long-term prognosis.

According to international guidelines on diabetes and cardiovascular disease, fasting glucose and HbA1c should be routinely measured in all patients with MI to confirm or exclude a diabetes diagnosis [5, 10]. An OGTT may be considered in cases where a diabetes diagnosis is still unclear [5]. If abnormal glucose metabolism is identified, management of risk factors including lifestyle modification, adequate secondary preventive treatment and glycemic control should be applied to decrease the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events [5, 10].

Despite guideline recommendations, follow-up at many cardiac rehabilitation (CR) centers for post-MI patients does not routinely include assessment of glucose metabolism [2,3,4]. Also, pharmaceutical treatment and lifestyle modifications in patients with concomitant MI and diabetes are insufficient [11]. In Sweden, CR for post-MI patients is well integrated into routine healthcare and holds a high international standard [4, 12,13,14]. However, there is considerable variation in both target attainment and the work routines applied at Swedish CR centers to reach treatment targets for risk factors [4, 12]. It is unknown to which extent structured routines for diabetes care are integrated into CR in Sweden, and whether having such routines implemented within CR improves detection and treatment of glucometabolic abnormalities for post-MI patients.

The main purpose of this study was to (1) describe how screening and management of glucometabolic abnormalities is organized at CR centers in Sweden and (2) explore associations between work routines for management of glucometabolic abnormalities at center-level and rate of newly detected diabetes and treatment at patient-level at one-year post-MI.

Methods

Study design

This was an observational survey- and registry-based cohort study.

Data collection

Three databases were used in this study: the Perfect-CR study, the national MI registry SWEDEHEART [4] and The Statistics Sweden registry [15].

The Perfect-CR study was a survey-based study which evaluated the work routines followed at CR centers in Sweden in 2016 [12]. All 78 centers actively following post-MI patients in Sweden at the time completed the survey and missing data was minimal (< 3%). Details of the study procedure have previously been published [12]. In the current study we focused on the part of the survey exploring work routines pertaining to diabetes management during CR. These included four work routines, defined as the study exposures: (1) routine assessment of fasting glucose and/or HbA1c values by a nurse at the start of the CR program (laboratory measures performed at index MI hospitalization or prior to CR start), (2) routine use of OGTT during follow-up, (3) having regular joint case rounds with diabetologists, and (4) initiation and/or adjustment of glucose-lowering medication by the CR center’s physicians. The use of OGTT could be performed in all patients without known diabetes or on a selection of patients (high normal HbA1c/fasting glucose). Out of the 78 CR centers participating in Perfect-CR, two centers had no follow-up data and were excluded from further analysis.

Patient baseline and outcome data were extracted from the SWEDEHEART and Statistics Sweden registries. SWEDEHEART is a nationwide registry for cardiac disease. The registry includes patient data from all hospitals in Sweden that treat and follow up patients with acute MI. Data on acute care is collected at coronary care units and follow-up data is collected at CR centers at 2-months and one-year post-MI [16, 17]. All coronary care units and CR centers in the country report to SWEDEHEART. The registry data includes information on comorbidities, previous medical history and medications, laboratory analyses, risk factors, psychosocial- and lifestyle variables, and readmissions [4]. Patient inclusion is shown in Figure S1. Inclusion criteria were: 1) discharged alive after hospitalization for type-1 MI, 2) age 18–74 years, and 3) attending CR in the year preceding administration of the Perfect-CR survey. The timeframe was chosen to match the time in which patients attended CR with the time reflected in the Perfect-CR survey answers. There were no exclusion criteria. Diabetes (type 1 or 2) in SWEDEHEART is defined as a diagnosis in medical records and/or by the patient being prescribed glucose-lowering medication. A diagnosis of pre-diabetes is not registered in SWEDEHEART. No documentation of how a diagnosis has been made is available in SWEDEHEART and can vary between centers. At the time of the study, the type of diabetes was not registered in SWEDEHEART. Hence, in this study a distinction between different types of diabetes was not possible. Also, variables reflecting diabetes treatment in SWEDEHEART at the time were “Treatment with insulin (yes/no)” and “Treatment with other oral glucose-lowering medications (yes/no)”. Further classification of glucose-lowering medication was not registered and injection therapy other than insulin was uncommon [18].

Statistics Sweden is the Swedish government agency responsible for producing official statistics including data from Swedish health care units [15]. Data from Statistics Sweden used in this study included baseline data on socioeconomic status including country of birth, disposable household income, marital status, occupational status, and level of education [15].

Center-level data were merged with patient-level data by linking each patient to the specific CR center where the patient underwent their follow-up [19]. The final dataset used in the current study included all patients (n = 7601) discharged with an MI diagnosis (ICD-10 codes I21) between Nov 2015 and Oct 2016 and subsequently followed at the 76 included CR centers.

Outcome definition

Outcomes were (1) rate of newly detected diabetes cases and (2) the proportion of patients receiving glucose lowering treatment other than insulin at a one-year follow-up visit registered in SWEDEHEART. If one-year data was missing, data from the 2-month follow-up visit was used. Pre-diabetes was not included in the newly detected diabetes outcome as information on pre-diabetes diagnosis is not available in SWEDEHEART. Also, as it is uncommon for CR physicians to initiate or adjust insulin, we only included treatment with oral glucose-lowering medication in the treatment outcome. All patients irrespective of diabetes diagnosis were included in the diabetes treatment outcome analysis to ascertain inclusion of patients with pre-diabetes, that might be treated with oral glucose-lowering medication, predominantly metformin [20].

Statistical analysis

Baseline data are reported as frequencies and percentages (%) medians and interquartile ranges (Q1, Q3), or means and standard deviations (SD) as appropriate. Exposures were modelled in three different ways: (i) having two to four routines implemented defined as exposure versus having zero or one routine implemented defined as reference; (ii) each working routine defined as a separate exposure with not having that routine implemented defined as the reference; and (iii) the number of implemented routines from zero to four, with zero being the reference. The association between the exposures and the outcomes were estimated as incidence changes (risk differences) and incidence ratios (risk ratios). Both measures were based on a mixed-effects linear model, with random intercepts for each CR center. The risk ratio was estimated as the sum of the crude control-group incidence and the risk difference, divided by the control-group incidence. Our linear mixed model did not include crude incidence and did thus not calculate in the RR variance. Instead, the variance of the risk ratio estimate was calculated using the delta method, assuming independence of the risk difference and the control-group crude incidence. Covariates comprised (a) patient-related variables including age, gender, comorbidities, body max index, smoking status, marital status, education attainment, disposable income, and participation in educational and training programs as part of the comprehensive CR program; and (b) center-related variables including composition of the CR team, qualifications of CR team members, team spirit, audit data being used for quality control, regular team meetings, content of the comprehensive CR program, size of the CR center and whether it was situated at a university hospital. All covariates are presented in a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) in Figure S2.

To maximize statistical power and avoid biasing of estimates from using only complete cases, multiple imputation was implemented. With the overall rate of missingness among covariates being only 1.3%, simple hot deck imputation was used. Missing values on individual-level covariates were replaced by the value of a randomly selected individual from the same CR center. Missing values on CR center-level covariates were replaced by the value of a randomly selected CR center. Thirty imputed data sets were created, and the results were combined using Rubin’s rules.

[21]. Statistical significance was set to p < 0.05. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 27, Chicago, Illinois, USA) and R version 4.2.2. According to relevant literature, 20 data sets would be suitable, yet 30 were used to account for differences between our data and simulations [22].

Results

Center-level baseline characteristics

Out of the 76 CR centers participating in Perfect-CR where follow-up data on patient-level was available, nine centers (11.8%) were based at university hospitals. The median number of patients eligible for follow-up per center in 2016 was 101 (68, 164). Fasting glucose and/or HbA1c were routinely evaluated at CR program initiation at 63.2% (n = 48) of the CR centers, while 38.2% (n = 29) of the centers reported routinely performing OGTT. At 17.1% (n = 13) of the CR centers the physicians independently initiated and/or adjusted glucose-lowering medication and 9.2% (n = 7) reported having regular joint case rounds with diabetologists. Most centers had none (23.7%, n = 18) or one (36.8%, n = 28) of the work routines for structured diabetes care in place, while 39.4% (n = 30) of the CR centers reported having two or more routines implemented. Only 2.6% (n = 2) of the centers reported having all four work routines implemented. Further details can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1 Diabetes care work routines applied at cardiac rehabilitation centers in Sweden as surveyed in the Perfect-CR survey
Full size table

Patient-level baseline characteristics

In total, 7601 patients followed at the 76 CR centers were included. Mean age of the patients was 62.6 ± 8.7 years and 76% were male. The proportion of patients with previously known or newly detected diabetes during hospitalization was 22.5% (n = 1710), out of which 80.8% were treated with any glucose-lowering agent (oral or injection) at discharge. Diabetes prevalence at one-year follow-up was 26.5% (n = 2013) with 86.3% of the patients being treated with any glucose-lowering agent. Further patient-level baseline characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Baseline characteristics at patient-level
Full size table

Analysis of routines

Routinely performed OGTT was the work routine which implementation differed the most between the dichotomized groups 0–1 routines (11%) vs. 2–4 routines (87%) (Table 3). Also, none of the CR centers where 0–1 routines were followed reported CR physicians to initiate and/or adjust glucose-lowering medication. Routine composition for individual routine exposures, by the number of patients per routine and the percentage of patients exposed/not exposed to other routines are shown in Table S1.

Table 3 The number and percentage of patients followed at CR centers applying the surveyed diabetes care work routines, by advancing number of routines (0–4 routines) and dichotomized (0–1 vs. 2–4 routines)
Full size table

Outcome analyses

Outcome data on newly detected diabetes cases was available for 7595 (99.9%) patients. During the first year post-MI 303 new cases of diabetes were detected. The proportion of patients with newly detected diabetes followed at centers where 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 routines were implemented was 2.7%, 3.7%, 5.1%. 5.4% and 6.3%. Further details are shown in Table 4. Outcome data was available on 7594 (99.9%) patients for oral glucose-lowering treatment. Glucose-lowering medication other than insulin was prescribed to 1080 (14.2%) patients at discharge and 17.9% at one-year follow-up. Of these, nearly had a diabetes diagnosis (96.6%). The percentage of treated patients followed at centers where 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 routines were implemented was 16.8%, 17.3%, 17.1%, 20.4% and 32.4%. The results from the mixed-effect modelling are shown in Table 5, displaying the adjusted differences in rates of new diagnoses and treatment and risk ratios with confidence intervals for the exposures dichotomized as 0–1 versus 2–4 routines and each routine separately. Having 2–4 routines in place was associated with a higher proportion of patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (adjusted difference 1.79%, risk ratio (RR) [95% confidence interval]: 1.54 [1.20, 1.88], p = 0.0017). The proportion of patients being treated with oral glucose-lowering medication was marginally higher for patients exposed to 2–4 routines compared to those exposed to 0–1 routines (adjusted difference 2.12%) without reaching statistical significance (RR 1.12 [0.98, 1.27], p = 0.0974). When examining each routine separately, routinely performing OGTT was associated with both outcomes, with an adjusted difference in detection of diabetes of 2.00% (RR 1.62 [1.26, 1.98], (p = 0.0007) and a higher probability of patients receiving diabetes treatment at one-year (adjusted difference 3.64%, RR 1.22 [1.07, 1.37], p = 0.0046). The proportion of patients receiving oral glucose-lowering treatment at one-year post-MI was also higher when such medication was reported to be adjusted by the CR physicians (adjusted difference 5.34%, RR 1.31 [1.06, 1.56], p = 0.0155). As shown in Fig. 1, compared to having no work routines for diabetes care in place, the more routines implemented the higher the rate of newly detected diabetes (p for trend = 0.0014).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Adjusted differences and confidence intervals for the number of routines followed, from one to four routines, no routine followed being the reference group. Differences in proportion of patients with newly detected diabetes is shown above (A) and of patients receiving oral glucose-lowering treatment below (B)

Full size image
Table 4 The proportion of patients with newly detected diabetes (left) and proportion of patients treated with oral glucose-lowering medication (right) as registered at follow-up visits within CR during the first year post-MI
Full size table
Table 5 Adjusted differences and relative risks (confidence intervals) in the proportion of newly detected diabetes and proportion receiving oral glucose-lowering treatment for patients followed at centers applying 0–1 vs. 2–4 routines, as well as for each routine separately
Full size table

Discussion

In this study we observed that having structured work routines for diabetes care in CR was associated with a higher number of newly detected diabetes cases and a higher proportion of patients being treated with oral glucose-lowering medication at one-year post-MI. Out of the four diabetes care routines examined, using OGTT during follow-up was most strongly associated with both outcomes, followed by glucose-lowering medication being initiated and/or adjusted by the CR physicians. Also, we observed a dose-response incremental benefit with a greater number of implemented routines.

Although CR programs are overall relatively comprehensive in Sweden, our study indicates considerable variation in how work routines for screening and treatment of diabetes in post-MI patients are applied across CR sites, with the majority of sites applying none or one of the routines surveyed, while others applied three or four routines. In the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for diabetes and cardiovascular disease and the American Diabetes Association update (both from 2023), screening for potential diabetes among patients who have suffered a cardiovascular event is highly recommended [5, 10]. It has previously been shown that by analyzing fasting glucose, HbA1c and/or performing OGTT, two-thirds of patients with acute coronary syndromes without known diabetes are found to have undiagnosed diabetes or other abnormalities in glucose metabolism [6]. This highlights the importance of early screening for glucometabolic abnormalities in patients with MI to enable adequate treatment, which in turn improves long-term prognosis reducing both cardiovascular disease- and diabetes complications. Only 63% of CR centers reported routinely evaluating fasting glucose and HbA1c at the start of the CR program, a percentage that should be closer to 100%. Also, only 40% reported routinely using OGTT, most of whom reported screening only a selection of patients. The results indicate ample room for improvement in screening for glucometabolic abnormalities within CR in Sweden.

Adequate diabetes treatment post-MI is strongly recommended [5]. Our findings showed that 80.8% of patients with diabetes were treated with glucose-lowering agents (oral or insulin) at discharge and 86.3% at one-year follow-up. Initiating or adjusting glucose-lowering treatment was, however, inconsistently carried out by physicians at CR centers, with only one in six centers reporting adherence to this routine. As indicated by the latest EUROASPIRE IV survey, conducted during the same time as the Perfect-CR study (2016–2017), there also seemed to be room for improvement in adequate diabetes treatment among patients with coronary artery disease in Europe. These authors showed that 75% of patients with established diabetes were treated with glucose-lowering medication, most commonly metformin [11]. The importance of identifying diabetes post-MI holds even more true with recent advancements of glucose-lowering treatment with cardioprotective capacity, [23,24,25]. Recent data from the SWEDEHEART registry has shown a marked increase in the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1RA in recent years, with more than 60% of post-MI patients being treated with either or both classes of drugs in 2023 [4]. Still there is room for improvement, combined these results indicate that CR physicians need to take a larger responsibility for adequate diabetes treatment post-MI. As such, this aspect of the risk factor treatment arsenal should to a larger extent be included in comprehensive CR care, analogous to treatment for hypertension and dyslipidemia.

The optimal laboratory assessments to detect glucometabolic abnormalities in patients with cardiovascular disease is still debated. Two of the diabetes care work routines examined in our study were evaluating fasting glucose and/or HbA1c values at the start of the CR program and routinely performing OGTT for detecting glucometabolic abnormalities during post-MI follow-up. Out of the two routines, performing OGTT was associated with an increased rate of newly diagnosed diabetes at one-year post-MI. Karayiannides et al. recently showed that performing OGTT identified 10% more patients with undetected diabetes at the time of MI, compared to using fasting glucose and HbA1c alone [7]. Similarly, EUROASPIRE V demonstrated that if OGTT was not conducted, 30% of patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and 70% of individuals with impaired glucose tolerance would have remained undetected [11]. Combined, these results support recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology and American Diabetes Association guidelines on complementing diabetes screening with fasting glucose and HbA1c with OGTT in unclear cases [5, 10]. OGTT is also necessary to diagnose patients with impaired glucose tolerance [26, 27] which is estimated to carry the same high risk for cardiovascular disease as newly detected diabetes [28].

Having joint case rounds with diabetologists was the work routine surveyed in the Perfect-CR study most seldom implemented at CR centers. The importance of the multidisciplinary team has been recognized to improve patient care, through which disease complications can be prevented [29, 30]. In a review by Muuza, the risk of amputation in patients with diabetes-related foot ulcers after initiation a multidisciplinary approach was investigated [29]. While the team composition varied, in 94% of the included studies major amputations were reduced. Also, patients under the care of multidisciplinary teams consistently demonstrated improved glycemic control, management of vascular and infection diseases, and a lower incidence of major amputations [29]. Chava et al. demonstrated the benefit of having a multidisciplinary team in caring for patients with congestive heart failure, showing a significant decrease in both readmission rates and length of hospital stay [30]. While falling short of statistical significance, we observed that at centers reporting to have joint case rounds with diabetologists for managing post-MI patients with diabetes, the chance of diagnosing more patients with diabetes and the proportion of patients being prescribed oral glucose-lowering medication was numerically higher. Combined, others´ and our results suggest that multidisciplinary team collaboration may contribute to better identification, treatment, and outcomes in several disease states.

Strengths and limitations

Our study focused on the association of CR work routines for diabetes care at center-level and detection and treatment of diabetes on patient-level, an aspect that to our knowledge has not been previously studied. Data was used from the nationwide SWEDEHEART registry and the Perfect-CR cohort, both having a center-level coverage of 100%. Missing data at center-level was minimal, increasing representativity and minimizing bias. All the same, some limitations should be mentioned. Type of diabetes was not registered in SWEDEHEART at the time of the study. Classification of glucose-lowering medication was also limited to insulin and oral glucose-lowering agents. How diabetes is diagnosed is not registered in SWEDEHEART and can vary between centers. Data on fasting glucose and HbA1c was often missing and could thus not be included as an individual outcome of diabetes treatment quality. As the Perfect-CR study was not powered for long-term outcome analyses we did not investigate associations with MI or diabetes-related outcomes. Although OGTT offers essential insights for diagnosing diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance fort post-MI patients, it is costly and time-consuming, posing barriers to implementation. Finally, residual confounding cannot be excluded because this was an observational study and caution is required with respect to causal interpretation.

Conclusions

This study provides supporting evidence for structured follow-up for identifying and managing patients with abnormal glucose metabolism post-MI. While our results particularly encourage the use of OGTT as a routine diagnostic work-up, a cluster-randomized trial is warranted to ascertain causality for individual and cumulative routine implementation.

Data availability

Access to data from the SWEDEHEART registry needs to be applied for and third-party data usage is not allowed. Instead, given ethical study approval from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority, access to SWEDEHEART data supporting the present findings can be applied for from the Uppsala Clinical Research Center in Sweden. Further information can be found on the UCR www.ucr.uu.se/en/ and Swedish Ethical Review Authority etikprovningsmyndigheten.se/ websites. Aggregated data used in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CR:

Cardiac rehabilitation

GLP:

1RA–Glucagon–like peptide–1 receptor agonist

HbA1c:

Hemoglobin A1C

MI:

Myocardial infarction

OGTT:

Oral glucose tolerance test

SWEDEHEART:

The Swedish Web system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence–based care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies

SGLT:

2–Sodium–glucose cotransporter–2

References

  1. Bartnik M, Norhammar A, Rydén L. Hyperglycaemia and cardiovascular disease. J Intern Med. 2007;262(2):145–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jacoby RM, Nesto RW. Acute myocardial infarction in the diabetic patient: pathophysiology, clinical course and prognosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20(3):736–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gyberg V, De Bacquer D, De Backer G, Jennings C, Kotseva K, Mellbin L, et al. Patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes need improved management: a report from the EUROASPIRE IV survey: a registry from the EuroObservational Research Programme of the European Society of Cardiology. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2015;14:133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Vasko PAJ, Bäck M et al. SWEDEHEART 2023 Annual Report. In: Center CR, editor. Uppsala, Sweden. 2024.

  5. Marx N, Federici M, Schütt K, Müller-Wieland D, Ajjan RA, Antunes MJ et al. 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. Eur Heart J. 2023.

  6. Norhammar A, Tenerz A, Nilsson G, Hamsten A, Efendíc S, Rydén L, Malmberg K. Glucose metabolism in patients with acute myocardial infarction and no previous diagnosis of diabetes mellitus: a prospective study. Lancet. 2002;359(9324):2140–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Karayiannides S, Djupsjo C, Kuhl J, Hofman-Bang C, Norhammar A, Holzmann MJ, Lundman P. Long-term prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction and newly detected glucose abnormalities: predictive value of oral glucose tolerance test and HbA1c. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2021;20(1):122.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sarwar N, Gao P, Seshasai SR, Gobin R, Kaptoge S, Di Angelantonio E, et al. Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies. Lancet. 2010;375(9733):2215–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, Im K, Goodrich EL, Furtado RHM, et al. Comparison of the effects of glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2019;139(17):2022–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, et al. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(Suppl 1):S19-40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferrannini G, De Bacquer D, De Backer G, Kotseva K, Mellbin L, Wood D, Rydén L. Screening for glucose perturbations and risk factor management in dysglycemic patients with coronary artery Disease-A Persistent Challenge in need of substantial improvement: a Report from ESC EORP EUROASPIRE V. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(4):726–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ögmundsdottir Michelsen H, Sjölin I, Schlyter M, Hagström E, Kiessling A, Henriksson P, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction in Sweden– evaluation of programme characteristics and adherence to European guidelines: the Perfect Cardiac Rehabilitation (Perfect-CR) study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;27(1):18–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Piepoli MF, Corrà U, Adamopoulos S, Benzer W, Bjarnason-Wehrens B, Cupples M, et al. Secondary prevention in the clinical management of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Core components, standards and outcome measures for referral and delivery: a Policy Statement from the Cardiac Rehabilitation section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation. Endorsed by the Committee for Practice Guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;21(6):664–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Visseren FLJ, Mach F, Smulders YM, Carballo D, Koskinas KC, Back M, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(34):3227–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ludvigsson JF, Svedberg P, Olén O, Bruze G, Neovius M. The longitudinal integrated database for health insurance and labour market studies (LISA) and its use in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019;34(4):423–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Jernberg T, Attebring MF, Hambraeus K, Ivert T, James S, Jeppsson A, et al. The Swedish web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies (SWEDEHEART). Heart. 2010;96(20):1617–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bäck M, Leosdottir M, Hagström E, Norhammar A, Hag E, Jernberg T, et al. The SWEDEHEART secondary prevention and cardiac rehabilitation registry (SWEDEHEART CR registry). Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2021;7(5):431–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ritsinger V, Lagerqvist B, Lundman P, Hagström E, Norhammar A. Diabetes, metformin and glucose lowering therapies after myocardial infarction: insights from the SWEDEHEART registry. Diabetes Vasc Dis Res. 2020;17(6):1479164120973676.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Michelsen H, Henriksson P, Wallert J, Bäck M, Sjölin I, Schlyter M, et al. Organizational and patient-level predictors for attaining key risk factor targets in cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: the Perfect-CR study. Int J Cardiol. 2023;371:40–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kitabchi AE, Temprosa M, Knowler WC, Kahn SE, Fowler SE, Haffner SM, et al. Role of insulin secretion and sensitivity in the evolution of type 2 diabetes in the diabetes prevention program: effects of lifestyle intervention and metformin. Diabetes. 2005;54(8):2404–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rubin D. Multiple imputation for non-response in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Graham JW, Olchowski AE, Gilreath TD. How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci. 2007;8(3):206–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Standl E, Schnell O, McGuire DK, Ceriello A, Rydén L. Integration of recent evidence into management of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Lancet Diabet Endocrinol. 2017;5(5):391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, Fitchett D, Bluhmki E, Hantel S, et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2117–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Giugliano D, Longo M, Signoriello S, Maiorino MI, Solerte B, Chiodini P, Esposito K. The effect of DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes: a network meta-analysis of 23 CVOTs. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2022;21(1):42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Standl E. Does using HbA1c inform diagnosis of diabetes in patients with coronary artery disease? Eur Heart J. 2015;36(19):1149–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Beulens J, Rutters F, Rydén L, Schnell O, Mellbin L, Hart HE, Vos RC. Risk and management of pre-diabetes. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019;26(suppl):47–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ritsinger V, Tanoglidi E, Malmberg K, Näsman P, Rydén L, Tenerz Å, Norhammar A. Sustained prognostic implications of newly detected glucose abnormalities in patients with acute myocardial infarction: long-term follow-up of the glucose tolerance in patients with Acute myocardial infarction cohort. Diabet Vasc Dis Res. 2015;12(1):23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Musuuza J, Sutherland BL, Kurter S, Balasubramanian P, Bartels CM, Brennan MB. A systematic review of multidisciplinary teams to reduce major amputations for patients with diabetic foot ulcers. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71(4):1433–e463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chava R, Karki N, Ketlogetswe K, Ayala T. Multidisciplinary rounds in prevention of 30-day readmissions and decreasing length of stay in heart failure patients: a community hospital based retrospective study. Medicine. 2019;98(27):e16233.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Lund University. This study was funded by The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE, grant number 2019 − 00365); The Swedish Heart and Lung Association (grant number 20190431); the Region of Skane, Sweden; and NovoNordisk (unrestricted grant). The funding sources had no role in the design or conduct of the study, interpretation of the study findings or manuscript writing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Jan Waldenströms gata 15 plan 3, 205 02, Malmö, Sweden

    Bashaaer Sharad, Martin Magnusson, Halldora Ögmundsdottir Michelsen, Amra Jujic, Nael Shaat & Margrét Leósdóttir

  2. Department of Cardiology, Skane University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden

    Bashaaer Sharad, Martin Magnusson & Margrét Leósdóttir

  3. Department of Statistics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Nils Eckerdal & Ronnie Pingel

  4. Department of Emergency Medicine and Geriatrics, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden

    Halldora Ögmundsdottir Michelsen

  5. EXODIAB: Excellence of Diabetes Research in Sweden, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden

    Amra Jujic

  6. Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    Matthias Lidin & Linda Mellbin

  7. Department of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Matthias Lidin & Linda Mellbin

  8. Department of Endocrinology, Skane University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden

    Nael Shaat

  9. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Center for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Sweden

    John Wallert

  10. Department of Medical Sciences, Cardiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Emil Hagström

  11. Wallenberg Center for Molecular Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Martin Magnusson

  12. Hypertension in Africa Research Team, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

    Martin Magnusson

Authors
  1. Bashaaer Sharad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nils Eckerdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Magnusson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Halldora Ögmundsdottir Michelsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amra Jujic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthias Lidin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Linda Mellbin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nael Shaat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ronnie Pingel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. John Wallert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Emil Hagström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Margrét Leósdóttir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.H. and M.Le. conceived and designed the study. H.Ö.M. and M.Le. were involved in data acquisition. B.S., M.Le., N.E., R.P., and J.W. conducted the statistical analyses. B.S. and M.Le. drafted the manuscript. M.M., E.H. and M.Le. provided supervision and mentorship. M.Le. provided funding and administrated the project. All authors reviewed and revised the manuscript, gave final approval, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bashaaer Sharad.

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The need for signed consent by patients for inclusion in Swedish quality registries is waived. Upon hospital admission, patients with MI are informed verbally and in writing by a nurse or physician about SWEDEHEART and their unrestricted ability to opt out of the registry at any time (extremely rare, 0–5 individuals/year). The study complied with the Helsinki Declaration and was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee at Lund University (2018-55).

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharad, B., Eckerdal, N., Magnusson, M. et al. Structured diabetes care routines in cardiac rehabilitation are associated with increased diabetes detection and improved treatment after myocardial infarction: a nationwide observational study. Cardiovasc Diabetol 23, 330 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-024-02425-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-024-02425-6

Keywords

Cardiovascular Diabetology

ISSN: 1475-2840