OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the value of serum glycated albumin (GA) level versus glycated hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) for evaluating the presence and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Serum GA and blood HbA(1c) levels were measured in 829 consecutive T2DM patients with or without angiographically documented significant CAD (≥70% diameter stenosis). RESULTS: Serum GA levels were higher in diabetic patients with significant CAD than in those without (20.57 ± 4.23 vs. 19.00 ± 4.48%; p < 0.001), but HbA(1c) was similar in the two groups (7.74 ± 1.34 vs. 7.51 ± 1.37% p > 0.05). Compared to HbA(1c), GA correlated more closely with the sum of significant stenotic lesions (r = 0.275, p < 0.001 and r = 0.092, p = 0.019) and the extent index (r = 0.375, p < 0.001 and r = 0.091, p = 0.019). The area under the curve of GA was larger than that of HbA(1c) for detecting the presence of significant CAD (0.637 vs. 0.568; p = 0.046) and 3-vessel disease (0.620 vs. 0.536; p = 0.039). GA, but not HbA(1c), was independently associated with significant CAD. CONCLUSIONS: Serum GA level is a better indicator than HbA(1c) for evaluating the presence and severity of CAD and predicting major adverse cardiac events in patients with T2DM.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the value of serum glycated albumin (GA) level versus glycated hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) for evaluating the presence and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Serum GA and blood HbA(1c) levels were measured in 829 consecutive T2DM patients with or without angiographically documented significant CAD (≥70% diameter stenosis). RESULTS: Serum GA levels were higher in diabeticpatients with significant CAD than in those without (20.57 ± 4.23 vs. 19.00 ± 4.48%; p < 0.001), but HbA(1c) was similar in the two groups (7.74 ± 1.34 vs. 7.51 ± 1.37% p > 0.05). Compared to HbA(1c), GA correlated more closely with the sum of significant stenotic lesions (r = 0.275, p < 0.001 and r = 0.092, p = 0.019) and the extent index (r = 0.375, p < 0.001 and r = 0.091, p = 0.019). The area under the curve of GA was larger than that of HbA(1c) for detecting the presence of significant CAD (0.637 vs. 0.568; p = 0.046) and 3-vessel disease (0.620 vs. 0.536; p = 0.039). GA, but not HbA(1c), was independently associated with significant CAD. CONCLUSIONS: Serum GA level is a better indicator than HbA(1c) for evaluating the presence and severity of CAD and predicting major adverse cardiac events in patients with T2DM.
Authors: Christine L Chan; Laura Pyle; Megan M Kelsey; Lindsey Newnes; Amy Baumgartner; Philip S Zeitler; Kristen J Nadeau Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 4.866