| Literature DB >> 20707887 |
Thomas R Einarson1, Jonathan Hunchuck, Michiel Hemels.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased coronary intima media thickness (CIMT) has been associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, as have increased glucose levels. The link has not been established between glucose and CIMT; therefore, we sought to assess the relationship between glucose and CIMT.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20707887 PMCID: PMC2929218 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2840-9-37
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol ISSN: 1475-2840 Impact factor: 9.951
Characteristics of the accepted studies and correlation of post prandial glucose level with CIMT.
| Number of persons studied | Correlation coefficient | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose category | Glucose | Pearson's r | |||||
| Author | Year | normal | impaired | diabetic | Total | Groups* | (95% CI) |
| Faeh[ | 2007 | 776 | 150 | 184 | 1,110 | 3 | 0.075 (0.017-0.133) |
| Henry[ | 2004 | 278 | 168 | 301 | 747 | 3 | 0.094 (0.022-0.164) |
| Hunt[ | 2003 | 1,127 | 66 | 303 | 1,496 | 3 | 0.124 (0.074-0.174) |
| Ishizaka[ | 2003 | 738 | 334 | 166 | 1,238 | 3 | 0.056 (0-0.164) |
| Mohan[ | 2006 | 1,600 | 330 | 1,500 | 3,430 | 4 | 0.086 (0.053-0.119) |
| O'Leary[ | 1992 | 2,576 | 1,427 | 1,161 | 5,164 | 3 | 0.069 (0.042-0.096) |
| Niskanen[ | 1996 | 98 | 21 | 84 | 203 | 3 | 0.104 (-0.034-0.238) |
| Rajala[ | 2002 | 57 | 97 | 54 | 208 | 3 | 0.085 (-0.051-0.218) |
| Temelkova[ | 2000 | 265 | 82 | 88 | 435 | 4 | 0.180 (0.088-0.270) |
| Tuomilehto[ | 1998 | 100 | 25 | 44 | 169 | 3 | -0.020 (-0.169-0.131) |
| Wagenknecht[ | 1998 | 635 | 313 | 444 | 1,392 | 4 | 0.077 (0.024-0.129) |
| Overall | 8,250 | 3,013 | 4,329 | 15,592 | 0.082 (0.066-0.098) | ||
*Indicates the number of glucose categories reported. In the Temelkova study, four groups were reported; however, only three were used for the analysis
Figure 1Forest plot of correlations between CIMT and postprandial glucose.
Figure 2Equation of best fit for the relationship between CIMT and glucose.
Effect sizes (95% confidence limits) for the difference in CIMT between categories of post prandial glucose levels.
| Glucose categories being compared | ||
|---|---|---|
| Diabetic-Normal | Impaired-Normal | |
| Faeh[ | 0.331 (0.170, 0.493) | 0.187 (0.012, 0.362) |
| Henry[ | 0.293 (0.129, 0.457) | 0.300 (0.107, 0.492) |
| Hunt[ | 0.401 (0.273-0.528) | 0.326 (0.078-0.575) |
| Ishizaka[ | 0.239 (0.071, 0.408) | 0.122 (-0.006, 0.252) |
| Mohan[ | 0.304 (0.233, 0.375) | 0 (-0.118, 0.118) |
| O'Leary[ | 0.279 (0.210, 0.349) | 0.125 (0.060, 0.189) |
| Niskanen[ | 0.379 (0.085, 0.673) | 0.081 (-0.390, 0.552) |
| Rajala[ | 0.288 (-0.085, 0.662) | 0.072 (-0.254, 0.399) |
| Temelkova[ | 0.477 (0.233, 0.721) | 0.374 (0.125, 0.623) |
| Tuomilehto[ | -0.082 (-0.437, 0.271) | -0.030 (-0.469, 0.407) |
| Wagenknecht[ | 0.192 (0.070, 0.313) | 0.058 (-0.076, 0.194) |
| Overall | 0.294 (0.245, 0.343) | 0.137 (0.072, 0.202) |
Figure 3Forest plot of effect sizes between CIMT and post prandial glucose levels in diabetics versus normals.
Figure 4Forest plot of effect sizes between CIMT and post prandial glucose levels in persons with impaired glucose tolerance versus normals.