OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of mean platelet volume (MPV) on diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, ocular findings and MPV values were retrospectively reviewed in 192 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The patients were classified into four groups according to ocular findings, as follows: group 1, diabetic patients without diabetic retinopathy (n = 70); group 2, diabetic patients with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (n = 64); group 3, diabetic patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (n = 58); and group 4, healthy controls (n = 100). RESULTS: A significant difference was found in MPV values between groups 2 and 4 (P = 0.001), between groups 3 and 4 (P = 0.001), and between groups 1 and 4 (P = 0.004). No significant difference was found in MPV values between groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.241) and between groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.460); whereas there was a statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 3 (P = 0.015). The three diabetic groups (groups 1, 2, and 3) were compared with each other. While there was a statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 3 (P = 0.015), there was no significance between groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.46), and between group 1 and 2 (P = 0.241). Logistic regression analysis found a 1.40-fold increase in the risk of retinopathy development (OR: 1.404; P = 0.002) and a 1.46-fold increase in the risk of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (OR: 1.466; P = 0.002) as the MPV value increased. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients, the risk of retinopathy development increases with higher MPV values.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of mean platelet volume (MPV) on diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, ocular findings and MPV values were retrospectively reviewed in 192 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The patients were classified into four groups according to ocular findings, as follows: group 1, diabeticpatients without diabetic retinopathy (n = 70); group 2, diabeticpatients with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (n = 64); group 3, diabeticpatients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (n = 58); and group 4, healthy controls (n = 100). RESULTS: A significant difference was found in MPV values between groups 2 and 4 (P = 0.001), between groups 3 and 4 (P = 0.001), and between groups 1 and 4 (P = 0.004). No significant difference was found in MPV values between groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.241) and between groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.460); whereas there was a statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 3 (P = 0.015). The three diabetic groups (groups 1, 2, and 3) were compared with each other. While there was a statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 3 (P = 0.015), there was no significance between groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.46), and between group 1 and 2 (P = 0.241). Logistic regression analysis found a 1.40-fold increase in the risk of retinopathy development (OR: 1.404; P = 0.002) and a 1.46-fold increase in the risk of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (OR: 1.466; P = 0.002) as the MPV value increased. CONCLUSIONS: In diabeticpatients, the risk of retinopathy development increases with higher MPV values.