| Literature DB >> 30373519 |
Lijun Hu1, Chun Qiu2, Xiaosong Wang2, Mei Xu2, Xiaoliang Shao3, Yuetao Wang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In diabetes, dysregulated substrate utilization and energy metabolism of myocardium can lead to heart failure. To examine the dynamic changes of myocardium, most of the previous studies conducted dynamic myocardial PET imaging following euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp, which involves complicated procedures. In comparison, the whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT scan is a simple and widely used method. Therefore, we hope to use this method to observe abnormal myocardial glucose metabolism in diabetes and determine the influencing factors.Entities:
Keywords: Diabetes mellitus; FDG; Insulin resistance; Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; PET
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30373519 PMCID: PMC6206634 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-018-0943-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.298
Fig. 1The flowcharts of subjects grouping, PET/CT scanning and image analysis. ADA: American Diabetes Association, NFG: normal fasting glucose, IFG: impaired fasting glucose, DM: diabetes mellitus, NAFLD: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Fig. 2Visual grading scale of myocardial FDG uptake. (18F-FDG PET/CT maximal intensity projection images)
Baseline characteristics of study subjects
| Parameters | NFG ( | IFG ( | Diabetes ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male (%) | 65.0 | 65.4 | 84.0 | 0.169 |
| Age (years) | 48.0 ± 9.0 | 51.4 ± 9.1 | 50.2 ± 8.3 | 0.143 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.6 ± 2.9 | 24.5 ± 2.2 | 26.6 ± 3.2 | 0.004* |
| Current smokers (%) | 37.9 | 42.3 | 56.0 | 0.233 |
| Current drinkers (%) | 35.7 | 34.6 | 44.0 | 0.711 |
| ALT (u/L) | 24.0 (16.3, 32.0) | 25.5 (19.0, 36.0) | 28.9 (21.5, 54.5) | 0.020*# |
| AST (u/L) | 18.9 ± 4.7 | 19.7 ± 6.7 | 21.3 ± 8.1 | 0.128 |
| γ-GT (u/L) | 27.0 (19.0, 47.8) | 36.0 (20.5, 70.8) | 46.0 (32.0, 90.0) | < 0.001*# |
| TC (mmol/ L) | 4.95 ± 0.95 | 5.11 ± 1.09 | 5.59 ± 1.28 | 0.015* |
| TG (mmol/ L) | 2.16 (1.52, 2.96) | 2.51 (1.87, 3.67) | 3.20 (2.39, 5.83) | 0.001*# |
| HDL-C (mmol/ L) | 1.19 ± 0.27 | 1.23 ± 0.33 | 0.99 ± 0.19 | 0.002* |
| LDL-C (mmol/ L) | 2.44 ± 0.60 | 2.43 ± 0.56 | 2.86 ± 0.83 | 0.009* |
| TC/HDL-C | 4.36 ± 1.29 | 4.41 ± 1.39 | 5.80 ± 1.58 | < 0.001* |
| Lipoprotein (a) (mg/L) | 63.0 (44.0, 115.0) | 87.0 (44.0, 151.8) | 66.0 (42.5, 126.5) | 0.518# |
| TSH (μIU/ml) | 2.09 (1.51, 3.23) | 2.03 (1.22, 2.60) | 2.33 (1.58, 2.72) | 0.454# |
| Fasting glucose (mmol/L) | 5.31 ± 0.42 | 6.40 ± 0.19 | 8.18 ± 1.61 | < 0.001* |
| HbA1c (%) | 5.35 ± 0.35 | 5.76 ± 0.50 | 7.04 ± 1.35 | < 0.001* |
| Fasting insulin (mIU/L) | 5.98 (4.44, 8.11) | 5.63 (5.10, 7.99) | 9.13 (5.68, 13.24) | 0.001*# |
| HOMA-IR | 1.39 (1.01, 1.98) | 1.56 (1.42, 2.31) | 3.33 (2.42, 4.68) | < 0.001*# |
| NAFLD (%) | 14.3 | 15.4 | 36.0 | 0.029* |
| VAT volume (cm3) | 1281 (875, 1709) | 1452 (1114, 1714) | 1699 (1364, 2068) | 0.002*# |
| SAT volume (cm3) | 1778 (1491, 2217) | 1736 (1330, 2343) | 1714 (1452, 2277) | 0.999# |
BMI: body mass index, ALT: glutamic-pyruvic transaminase, AST: glutamic-oxalacetic transaminease, γ-GT: glutamyl transpeptidase, TC: total cholesterol, TG: triglyceride,HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol, NAFLD: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, VAT: visceral adipose tissue, SAT: subcutaneous adipose tissue
HOMA-IR = fasting glucose×fasting insulin /22.5
* indicates statistically siegnificant difference, # indicates Kruskal-Wallis test.
Fig. 3Myocardial SUVmean for each visual grade. SUVmean of grade 0–3 is 1.29 ± 0.21, 1.95 ± 0.47, 3.60 ± 0.70, 5.97 ± 1.25, respectively. (F = 338.14, P < 0.001)
Fig. 4Correlation between myocardial glucose uptake and diabetes. a, the distribution of NFG, IFG and DM groups in each myocardial glucose uptake grade; b, the differences in SUVmean between NFG, IFG and DM groups (NFG: 3.42 ± 1.92, IFG: 2.86 ± 1.56, DM: 1.94 ± 0.96, P < 0.05)
Fig. 5ROC curve analysis was used to assess the efficacy of using visual grading of myocardial FDG uptake to predict diabetes. When FDG uptake ≤ Grade 1, the sensitivity of predicting diabetes was 84%, the specificity was 58.43%, AUC = 0.745, and 95% confidence interval was 0.677 ~ 0.805 (z = 5.859, P < 0.001)
Correlation between visual grading of myocardial FDG uptake and metabolic factors
| Parameters | Grade 0 ( | Grade 1 ( | Grade 2 ( | Grade 3 ( | r | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male (%) | 89.1 | 72.7 | 61.3 | 46.2 | − 0.319 | < 0.001* |
| Age (years) | 48.0 ± 7.9 | 50.7 ± 9.7 | 49.8 ± 9.2 | 48.8 ± 9.0 | 0.107 | 0.139 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.6 ± 3.1 | 25.3 ± 2.9 | 24.3 ± 2.7 | 24.1 ± 2.9 | −0.176 | 0.015* |
| Current smokers (%) | 34.6 | 24.4 | 26.9 | 14.1 | −0.222 | 0.002* |
| Current drinkers (%) | 27.1 | 31.4 | 28.6 | 12.9 | −0.161 | 0.026* |
| ALT (u/L) | 30.5 (19.8, 42.0) | 25.5 (21.0, 35.8) | 22.0 (18.0, 30.3) | 19.0 (14.0, 29.0) | −0.281 | < 0.001* |
| AST (u/L) | 20.8 ± 7.0 | 19.6 ± 6.0 | 18.8 ± 4.4 | 18.1 ± 4.6 | −0.127 | 0.080 |
| γ-GT (u/L) | 44.0 (27.8, 72.8) | 34.0 (23.3, 68.5) | 25.0 (18.0, 43.8) | 24.0 (15.0, 37.0) | −0.345 | < 0.001* |
| TC (mmol/ L) | 5.20 ± 1.36 | 5.10 ± 0.85 | 4.84 ± 0.81 | 5.17 ± 1.09 | −0.026 | 0.719 |
| TG (mmol/ L) | 2.78 (1.77, 4.01) | 2.53 (1.78, 3.81) | 2.11 (1.45, 2.67) | 2.03 (1.52, 2.71) | −0.231 | 0.001* |
| HDL-C (mmol/ L) | 1.05 ± 0.27 | 1.09 ± 0.20 | 1.24 ± 0.28 | 1.27 ± 0.30 | 0.326 | < 0.001* |
| LDL-C (mmol/ L) | 2.60 ± 0.84 | 2.53 ± 0.54 | 2.36 ± 0.51 | 2.55 ± 0.67 | −0.042 | 0.569 |
| TC/HDL-C | 5.21 ± 1.79 | 4.81 ± 1.19 | 4.09 ± 1.16 | 4.22 ± 1.24 | −0.291 | < 0.001* |
| Lipoprotein(a) (mg/L) | 61.5 (37.8, 131.0) | 64.0 (49.0, 125.0) | 65.5 (44.8, 116.5) | 73.0 (37.0, 122.0) | −0.006 | 0.934 |
| TSH (μIU/ml) | 2.02 (1.44, 2.83) | 2.03 (1.47, 2.64) | 2.16 (1.56, 3.53) | 2.16 (1.48, 3.25) | 0.093 | 0.201 |
| Fasting glucose (mmol/ L) | 6.28 ± 1.57 | 5.97 ± 1.16 | 5.64 ± 1.10 | 5.45 ± 0.51 | −0.219 | 0.002* |
| HbA1c(%) | 5.85 ± 1.01 | 5.81 ± 0.98 | 5.45 ± 0.69 | 5.45 ± 0.44 | −0.173 | 0.018* |
| Fasting insulin (mIU/L) | 7.90 (5.46, 10.40) | 7.40 (4.86, 9.92) | 5.70 (4.51, 6.78) | 5.20 (4.00, 6.89) | −0.322 | < 0.001* |
| HOMA-IR | 2.17 (1.38, 2.88) | 1.91 (1.36, 2.47) | 1.29 (1.06, 1.63) | 1.37 (0.95, 1.60) | −0.365 | < 0.001* |
| NAFLD (%) | 54.5 | 24.2 | 18.2 | 3.0 | −0.337 | < 0.001* |
| VAT volume (cm3) | 1462 (1214, 1833) | 1571 (1042, 1900) | 1339 (950, 1731) | 1084 (766, 1450) | −0.239 | 0.001* |
| SAT volume (cm3) | 1693 (1354, 2021) | 1712 (1396, 2190) | 1781 (1516, 2183) | 1841 (1490, 2375) | 0.116 | 0.109 |
BMI: body mass index, ALT: glutamic-pyruvic transaminase, AST: glutamic-oxalacetic transaminease, γ-GT: glutamyl transpeptidase, TC: total cholesterol, TG: triglyceride,HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol, NAFLD: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, VAT: visceral adipose tissue, SAT: subcutaneous adipose tissue
HOMA-IR = fasting glucose×fasting insulin /22.5
* indicates statistically significant difference.
Logistic regression analysis of factors affecting myocardial FDG uptake
| Variables | Regression coefficient | OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 1.045 | 2.844 | 1.390~ 5.816 | 0.004 |
| HOMA-IR | 0.562 | 1.755 | 1.207~ 2.511 | 0.003 |
| NAFLD | 1.126 | 3.082 | 1.171~ 8.111 | 0.023 |
NAFLD: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
HOMA-IR = fasting glucose×fasting insulin /22.5