BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) in insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) has been linked to renal disease. However, little is known concerning international variation in the correlations with hyperglycaemia and standard CVD risk factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional comparison was made of prevalence rates and risk factor associations in two large studies of IDDM subjects: the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study (EDC) and the EURODIAB IDDM Complications Study from 31 centres in Europe. Subgroups of each were chosen to be comparable by age and duration of diabetes. The EDC population comprises 286 men (mean duration 20.1 years) and 281 women (mean duration 19.9 years); EURODIAB 608 men (mean duration 18.1 years) and 607 women (mean duration 18.9 years). The mean age of both populations was 28 years. Cardiovascular disease was defined by a past medical history of myocardial infarction, angina, and/or the Minnesota ECG codes (1.1-1.3, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.3, 7.1). RESULTS: Overall prevalence of CVD was similar in the two populations (i.e. men 8.6% versus 8.0%, women 7.4% versus 8.5%, EURODIAB versus EDC respectively), although EDC women had a higher prevalence of angina (3.9% versus 0.5%, P < 0.001). Multivariate modelling suggests that glycaemic control (HbA1c) is not related to CVD in men. Age and high density lipoprotein cholesterol predict CVD in EURODIAB, while triglycerides and hypertension predict CVD in EDC. For women in both populations, age and hypertension (or renal disease) are independent predictors. HbA1c is also an independent predictor-inversely in EURODIAB women (P < 0.008) and positively in EDC women (P = 0.03). Renal disease was more strongly linked to CVD in EDC than in EURODIAB. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a similar prevalence of CVD, risk factor associations appear to differ in the two study populations. Glycaemic control (HbA1c) does not show a consistent or strong relationship to CVD.
BACKGROUND:Cardiovascular disease (CVD) in insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) has been linked to renal disease. However, little is known concerning international variation in the correlations with hyperglycaemia and standard CVD risk factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional comparison was made of prevalence rates and risk factor associations in two large studies of IDDM subjects: the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study (EDC) and the EURODIAB IDDM Complications Study from 31 centres in Europe. Subgroups of each were chosen to be comparable by age and duration of diabetes. The EDC population comprises 286 men (mean duration 20.1 years) and 281 women (mean duration 19.9 years); EURODIAB 608 men (mean duration 18.1 years) and 607 women (mean duration 18.9 years). The mean age of both populations was 28 years. Cardiovascular disease was defined by a past medical history of myocardial infarction, angina, and/or the Minnesota ECG codes (1.1-1.3, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.3, 7.1). RESULTS: Overall prevalence of CVD was similar in the two populations (i.e. men 8.6% versus 8.0%, women 7.4% versus 8.5%, EURODIAB versus EDC respectively), although EDC women had a higher prevalence of angina (3.9% versus 0.5%, P < 0.001). Multivariate modelling suggests that glycaemic control (HbA1c) is not related to CVD in men. Age and high density lipoprotein cholesterol predict CVD in EURODIAB, while triglycerides and hypertension predict CVD in EDC. For women in both populations, age and hypertension (or renal disease) are independent predictors. HbA1c is also an independent predictor-inversely in EURODIAB women (P < 0.008) and positively in EDC women (P = 0.03). Renal disease was more strongly linked to CVD in EDC than in EURODIAB. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a similar prevalence of CVD, risk factor associations appear to differ in the two study populations. Glycaemic control (HbA1c) does not show a consistent or strong relationship to CVD.
Authors: Evrim B Turkbey; Jye-Yu C Backlund; Saul Genuth; Aditya Jain; Cuilian Miao; Patricia A Cleary; John M Lachin; David M Nathan; Rob J van der Geest; Elsayed Z Soliman; Chia-Ying Liu; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michelle L Katz; Craig R Kollman; Carly E Dougher; Mohamed Mubasher; Lori M B Laffel Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: J R Larsen; M Brekke; L Bergengen; L Sandvik; H Arnesen; K F Hanssen; K Dahl-Jorgensen Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Magnus T Jensen; Peter Sogaard; Ida Gustafsson; Jan Bech; Thomas F Hansen; Thomas Almdal; Simone Theilade; Tor Biering-Sørensen; Peter G Jørgensen; Søren Galatius; Henrik U Andersen; Peter Rossing Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Rehana Perveen; Kevin Funk; Jean Thuma; Shelli Wulf Ridge; Yanyan Cao; Jan Willem N Akkerman; Xiaozhuo Chen; Huzoor Akbar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Laura Brugnara; Roger Mallol; Josep Ribalta; Maria Vinaixa; Serafín Murillo; Teresa Casserras; Montse Guardiola; Joan Carles Vallvé; Susana G Kalko; Xavier Correig; Anna Novials Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sarah D de Ferranti; Ian H de Boer; Vivian Fonseca; Caroline S Fox; Sherita Hill Golden; Carl J Lavie; Sheela N Magge; Nikolaus Marx; Darren K McGuire; Trevor J Orchard; Bernard Zinman; Robert H Eckel Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 19.112