| Literature DB >> 30064457 |
Kihei Yoneyama1,2, Bharath A Venkatesh1, Colin O Wu3, Nathan Mewton1, Ola Gjesdal1, Satoru Kishi1, Robyn L McClelland4, David A Bluemke5, João A C Lima6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although diabetes mellitus (DM) and insulin resistance associate with adverse cardiac events, the associations of left ventricular (LV) remodeling and function with compromised glucose metabolism have not been fully evaluated in a general population. We used cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to evaluate how CMR indices are associated with DM or insulin resistance among participants before developing cardiac events.Entities:
Keywords: Glucose tolerance; Heart failure; Metabolic disease; Obesity; Strain
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30064457 PMCID: PMC6069876 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-018-0472-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Baseline demographic characteristics according to DM state (n = 1476)
| DM state* | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NFG | IFG | Untreated DM | Treated DM | |
| Variable | ( | ( | ( | ( |
| Age, year | 65 (56 to 72) | 67 (61 to 72)† | 66 (58 to 72) | 68 (64 to 75)† |
| Male sex, %§ | 509 (50.7) | 158 (60.3) | 35 (74.5) | 90 (55.2) |
| Ethnic, n (%)§ | ||||
| Caucasian | 336 (33) | 65 (25) | 12 (26) | 24 (15) |
| Black | 124 (12) | 51 (19) | 7 (15) | 26 (16) |
| Hispanic | 271 (27) | 66 (25) | 16 (34) | 56 (34) |
| Chinese | 273 (27) | 80 (31) | 12 (26) | 57 (35) |
| Smoking status, n (%) | ||||
| Never | 513 (51) | 142 (54) | 22 (47) | 88 (54) |
| Former | 376 (38) | 87 (33) | 20 (43) | 54 (33) |
| Current | 109 (11) | 32 (12) | 5 (11) | 20 (12) |
| Alcohol status, n (%)§ | ||||
| Never | 195 (20) | 47 (18) | 8 (17) | 44 (27) |
| Former | 240 (24) | 61 (23) | 9 (20) | 56 (35) |
| Current | 558 (56) | 152 (58) | 29 (63) | 61 (38) |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 27 (24 to 30) | 29 (26 to 32)† | 28 (25 to 32) | 29 (26 to 32)† |
| Systolic BP, mmHg | 124 (111 to 139) | 131 (118 to 145)† | 125 (115 to 145) | 132 (120 to 146)† |
| Diastolic BP, mmHg | 72 (65 to 78) | 74 (67 to 82)† | 73 (68 to 85) | 70 (64 to 77)‡ |
| Resting heart rate, bpm | 60 (55 to 67) | 64 (58 to 71)† | 66 (60 to 71)† | 66 (58 to 73)† |
| Hypertension, n (%)§ | 417 (42) | 145 (55) | 23 (49) | 120 (74) |
| Current smoker, n (%) | 109 (11) | 32 (12) | 5 (11) | 20 (12) |
| Total-cholesterol, mg/dl | 193 (172 to 215) | 195 (170 to 220) | 200 (170 to 218) | 184 (161 to 205) |
| HDL-cholesterol, mg/dl | 50 (42 to 60) | 45 (38 to 53)† | 42 (33 to 54)† | 44 (38 to 54)† |
| Triglyceride, mg/dl | 104 (74 to 150) | 125 (86 to 186)† | 128 (79 to 233) | 128 (83 to 202)† |
| Lipid-lowering medication, n (%)§ | 160 (16) | 53 (20) | 12 (26) | 53 (33) |
| Anti-hypertensive medication, n (%)§ | 337 (34) | 128 (49) | 16 (35) | 122 (75) |
| eGFR, mL/min | 76 (66 to 87) | 76 (64 to 88) | 83 (66 to 97) | 77 (63 to 91) |
| Walking, MET-min/week | 945 (360 to 1920) | 788 (315 to 1770) | 1245 (315 to 1995) | 2243 (735 to 3750) |
Values are median (interquartile range). BP, blood pressure; DM, diabetes mellitus; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate
HDL, high-density lipoprotein; IFG, impaired fasting glucose; NFG, normal fasting glucose
*DM was defined as fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dl or use of hypoglycemic medication or insulin; IFG was defined as fasting glucose levels between 100 mg/dl and 125 mg/dl; all other participants were defined as having NFG
†p < 0.0125 vs. NFG in in Wilcoxon test, ‡p < 0.0125 vs. untreated DM in Wilcoxon test. §p < 0.05 in chi-square
Association of CMR LV indices by DM state (n = 1476)
| Dependent variables (LV indices) | Multivariable liner regression; coefficients | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFG | Untreated DM | Treated DM | ||
| (vs. NFG) | (vs. NFG) | (vs. NFG) | R2 | |
| End-diastolic volume, ml | −1.86 (1.81) | 2.89 (3.82) | 0.17 (2.26) | 0.41 |
| Mass, g | 1.64 (2.00) | 5.01 (4.22) | 4.42 (2.50)* | 0.55 |
| Mass-to-volume | 0.04 (0.02)† | 0.01 (0.04) | 0.04 (0.02)* | 0.19 |
| Sphericity index, % | −0.44 (0.43) | 0.94 (0.90) | − 0.27 (0.54) | 0.10 |
| Ejection fraction, % | −0.33 (0.51) | −1.27 (1.08) | 0.76 (0.64) | 0.19 |
| Longitudinal shortening, % | −0.36 (0.17)† | −0.63 (0.37)* | − 0.17 (0.22) | 0.17 |
| Circumferential shortening, % | −0.03 (0.18) | −0.43 (0.39) | − 0.17 (0.23) | 0.15 |
| Torsion, °/cm | 0.13 (0.08) | −0.25 (0.18) | 0.24 (0.11)† | 0.18 |
Coefficients (standard errors) represents the difference in depend variables compared to NFG as a reference in DM fasting glucose criteria. Model include age, gender, race, height, obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), smoking status (non, former, and current), heart rate, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, use of medication for hypertension and dyslipidemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate, walking in METs per week, and alcoholic status (non-drinker, former, or current)
Abbreviations and definition of DM state as in Table 1
* p < 0.1, †p < 0.05
Fig. 1Associations of diabetes mellitus (DM) status with left ventricular (LV) indices (n = 1476). LV mass-to-volume ratio was higher in impaired fasting glucose and DM group than normal at any level of LV mass (a). Torsion was greater in treated DM than normal and untreated DM (b). The sphericity index was correlated negatively with the mass-to-volume ratio (c). Torsion was positively correlated with mass-to-volume ratio, and negatively with shericity index (d)
Association of LV remodeling and function by HOMA-IR among participants without diabetes mellitus (n = 1266)*
| Dependent variables (LV indices) | Multivariable liner regression coefficients | |
|---|---|---|
| Log-HOMA-IR | R2 | |
| End-diastolic volume, ml | ||
| Model 1 | 2.66 (1.40) | 0.36 |
| Model 2 | −2.53 (1.48) | 0.41 |
| Mass, g | ||
| Model 1 | 11.58 (1.58)‡ | 0.49 |
| Model 2 | 3.92 (1.61)† | 0.56 |
| Mass-to-volume | ||
| Model 1 | 0.07 (0.01)‡ | 0.18 |
| Model 2 | 0.05 (0.01)‡ | 0.20 |
| Sphericity index, % | ||
| Model 1 | −1.06 (0.33)‡ | 0.11 |
| Model 2 | −1.26 (0.35)‡ | 0.11 |
| Ejection fraction, % | ||
| Model 1 | 0.15 (0.38) | 0.18 |
| Model 2 | 0.25 (0.41) | 0.18 |
| Longitudinal shortening, % | ||
| Model 1 | −0.26 (0.13)† | 0.16 |
| Model 2 | −0.22 (0.14) | 0.17 |
| Circumferential shortening, % | ||
| Model 1 | −0.30 (0.14)† | 0.13 |
| Model 2 | −0.08 (0.15) | 0.14 |
| Torsion, 0/cm | ||
| Model 1 | 0.13 (0.06)† | 0.16 |
| Model 2 | 0.11 (0.07) | 0.17 |
Coefficients (standard error) represents the change in dependent variables corresponds to 1 unit increase in independent variables. Model 1 included age, gender, race, height, smoking status(never, former, or current), heart rate, hypertension, total cholesterol, use of medication for dyslipidemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate, walking in METs per week, and alcohol status (non-drinker, former, or current). Model 2 included systolic blood pressure, anti-hypertensive medication use, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) in addition to Model 1
Homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated as insulin (mU/l) × (glucose [mg/dl] × 0.055)/22.5. [16, 17]
*Participants with diabetes mellitus were excluded because participants with DM were excluded from the HOMA-IR calculation
†p < 0.05, ‡p < 0.01
Fig. 2Associations of HOMA-IR with left ventricular indices among participants without diabees mellitus (n = 1266). Higher HOMA-IR was positively correlated with mass, and inversely with sphericity index (a) and myocardial shortening (b). The mass-to-volume ratio was flatten at the same point where the torsion reduces. Myocardial shortening was progressively decreased with higher IR. Torsion was increased only with less severe insulin resistance. Locally weighted smoothing curve (LOWESS) using unadjusted standardized values are displayed. HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance
Association of left ventricular torsion with HOMA-IR (n = 1266)*
| Multivariable spline liner regression | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Depend variable | Log HOMA-IR < 1.5 mg/dl | Log HOMA-IR > 1.5 mg/dl | R2 |
| Torsion, °/cm | |||
| Model 1 | 0.16 (0.07)† | −0.51 (.40) | 0.15 |
| Model 2 | 0.16 (0.08)† | −0.50 (0.40) | 0.17 |
Coefficients (standard error) represents the change in torsion corresponds to 1 unite increase in log-HOMA-IR
Model1 included age, gender, race and height
Model 2 included age, gender, race, height, obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), smoking status (non, former, and current), heart rate, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, use of medication for hypertension and dyslipidemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate, walking in METs per week, and alcoholic status (non-drinker, former, or current) as in Table 3
*Participants with diabetes mellitus were excluded as in Table 3
† P < 0.05
Fig. 3Summary of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in asymptomatic individuals. DM or impaired insulin resistance are associated with adverse LV concentric remodeling, less spherical shape, and impaired systolic myocardial shortening in the general population. Torsion, however, is higher in participants who are treated for DM and impaired insulin resistance
Fig. 4Illustrations of torsion on LV remodeling and shape geometry. a A greater radius difference between the endocardium and epicardium (r2/r1 > R2/R1) would result in an increased rotation angle with respect to the lever-arm theory (α1 > α2). The left arm represents the radius from center to endocardium (R1 or r1), and the right arm center to the epicardium (R2 or r2). Black arrows represent force (myocardial contraction). Dot-line represents rotation angle change. b Less spherical shape would result in increased LV mass-to-volume ratio, and would then influence torsion