| Literature DB >> 26382215 |
Zhe Zhen1, Yan Chen2, Kendrick Shih3, Ju-Hua Liu4, Michele Yuen5, David Sai-Hung Wong6, Karen Siu-Ling Lam7,8, Hung-Fat Tse9,10, Kai-Hang Yiu11,12,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complicated by retinopathy is associated with altered left ventricular (LV) structure and resting myocardial dysfunction unlike T2DM without retinopathy. The myocardial response to stress has not been compared in patients with and without diabetic retinopathy. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the relationship between retinopathy and myocardial function in patients with T2DM at rest and during exercise echocardiography.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26382215 PMCID: PMC4574544 DOI: 10.1186/s12933-015-0281-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol ISSN: 1475-2840 Impact factor: 9.951
Baseline clinical characteristics in patients with and without retinopathy
| Parameters | No retinopathy | Retinopathy | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 91 | N = 43 | ||
| Demographic information | |||
| Age (year) | 59.7 ± 9.4 | 60.8 ± 9.1 | 0.52 |
| Male, n (%) | 50 (55 %) | 15 (35 %) | 0.03 |
| Disease duration (years) | 13.6 ± 7.4 | 17.9 ± 7.5 | <0.01 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 65 (71 %) | 36 (88 %) | 0.04 |
| Hyperlipidemia, n (%) | 45 (50 %) | 25 (60 %) | 0.31 |
| Smoking, n (%) | 21 (24 %) | 6 (15 %) | 0.27 |
| Body mass index (kg m−2) | 26.8 ± 5.3 | 26.2 ± 4.0 | 0.54 |
| Blood biochemistry | |||
| Triglyceride (mmol L−1) | 4.1 ± 1.1 | 4.2 ± 1.0 | 0.59 |
| Total cholesterol (mmol L−1) | 1.8 ± 1.4 | 1.7 ± 1.3 | 0.78 |
| High-density lipoprotein (mmol L−1) | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 0.31 |
| Low-density lipoprotein (mmol L−1) | 2.4 ± 0.6 | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 0.57 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 88.7 ± 21.6 | 113.9 ± 202.1 | 0.25 |
| HbA1c (%) | 7.5 ± 1.3 | 8.0 ± 1.4 | 0.06 |
| Medication, n (%) | |||
| Insulin | 38 (44 %) | 29 (69 %) | <0.01 |
| Diuretics | 7 (8 %) | 4 (10 %) | 0.76 |
| ACEI/ARB | 50 (56.8 %) | 23 (54.8 %) | 0.83 |
ARB angiotensin receptor blocker, ACEI angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate
Conventional echocardiographic parameters in patients with and without retinopathy
| No retinopathy | Retinopathy | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 91 | N = 43 | ||
| LVDd (mm) | 44.7 ± 5.1 | 43.6 ± 5.1 | 0.25 |
| LVDs (mm) | 28.9 ± 3.7 | 28.1 ± 3.5 | 0.23 |
| IVSd (mm) | 11.3 ± 2.2 | 12.0 ± 1.6 | 0.06 |
| IVSs (mm) | 14.2 ± 2.4 | 14.8 ± 3.6 | 0.26 |
| LVPWd (mm) | 11.0 ± 1.5 | 11.1 ± 1.5 | 0.79 |
| LVPWs (mm) | 14.7 ± 2.0 | 14.3 ± 2.0 | 0.34 |
| LV mass index (g) | 211 ± 66 | 212 ± 60 | 0.93 |
| LV ejection fraction (%) | 59.7 ± 5.0 | 58.1 ± 6.0 | 0.12 |
| E (m/s) | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.39 |
| E/A ratio | 0.94 ± 0.26 | 0.89 ± 0.55 | 0.45 |
| E′ (m/s) | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | <0.01 |
| E/E′ ratio | 7.5 ± 2.4 | 8.8 ± 3.6 | 0.02 |
| Diastolic function grade, n (%) | <0.01 | ||
| Normal | 52 (58 %) | 10 (23 %) | |
| Grade1 | 24 (27 %) | 26 (61 %) | |
| Grade2 | 11 (12 %) | 6 (14 %) | |
| Grade3 | 2 (2.2 %) | 1 (2.33 %) | |
| GLS (%) | −18.3 ± 2.0 | −17.2 ± 2.3 | <0.01 |
E trans-mitral early diastolic peak velocity, E′ septal annulus early diastolic peak velocity, GLS global longitudinal strain, IVSd interventricular septa thickness at end-diastole, IVSs interventricular septal systolic thickness at end-systole, LVDd left ventricle dimension at end-diastole, LVDs left ventricle dimension at end-systole, LVPWd left ventricle posterior wall thickness at end-diastole, LVPWs left ventricle posterior wall thickness at end-systole
Exercise echocardiography and treadmill parameters in patients with and without retinopathy
| Parameters | No retinopathy | Retinopathy | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 91 | N = 43 | ||
| Exercise echocardiography | |||
| LVEF (%) | |||
| Rest | 59.7 ± 5.0 | 58.1 ± 6.0 | 0.12 |
| Exercise | 64.5 ± 6.3 | 61.9 ± 6.6 | 0.03 |
| ∆ | 4.9 ± 7.0 | 3.8 ± 7.3 | 0.41 |
| E/A ratio | |||
| Rest | 0.94 ± 0.26 | 0.89 ± 0.55 | 0.45 |
| Exercise | 1.01 ± 0.37 | 0.93 ± 0.50 | 0.33 |
| ∆ | 0.07 ± 0.43 | 0.04 ± 0.73 | 0.78 |
| E/E′ ratio | |||
| Rest | 7.5 ± 2.4 | 8.8 ± 3.6 | 0.02 |
| Exercise | 7.8 ± 2.2 | 9.7 ± 4.9 | <0.01 |
| ∆ | 0.3 ± 2.3 | 1.0 ± 4.1 | 0.27 |
| GLS (%) | |||
| Rest | −18.3 ± 2.0 | −17.2 ± 2.3 | <0.01 |
| Exercise | −19.7 ± 2.3 | −17.5 ± 2.5 | <0.01 |
| ∆ | −1.4 ± 1.8 | −0.3 ± 2.0 | <0.01 |
| DFRI | 35.2 ± 22.0 | 22.8 ± 19.2 | <0.01 |
| Treadmill parameters | |||
| HR rest | 82.3 ± 12.8 | 86.3 ± 14.2 | 0.10 |
| HR exercise | 154.1 ± 16.8 | 146.4 ± 21.0 | 0.02 |
| HR reserve (bmp) | 71.9 ± 17.5 | 61.5 ± 17.6 | <0.01 |
| HR reserve (%) | 91.1 ± 31.2 | 73.6 ± 24.6 | <0.01 |
| METs | 8.3 ± 2.9 | 7.1 ± 2.7 | 0.03 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD or n (%)
DFRI diastolic function reserve index, HR heart rate, METs metabolic equivalents of task
Fig. 1Correlation of METS with resting echocardiography parameters: a E/E′; b Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); c Global longitudinal strain (GLS)
Fig. 2Correlation of METS with exercise echocardiography parameters: a Stress E/E′; b Stress Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); c Diastolic functional reserve index (DFRI); d Stress global longitudinal strain (GLS)