| Literature DB >> 30392504 |
Taghreed A Ahmed1, Yasser A Ahmed2, Asmaa I Arafa3, Rayyh A Salah4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a common chronic disorder of childhood and adolescence. T1DM induced cardiomyopathy has a different entity than T2DM as it relies on different pathophysiological mechanisms, and rarely coexists with hypertension and obesity. Evaluation of right ventricular (RV) function in diabetic patients has been neglected despite the important contribution of RV to the overall cardiac function that affects the course and prognosis of diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM).Entities:
Keywords: 2D speckle tracking; Diabetes type I; Right ventricle assessment; Tissue Doppler
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30392504 PMCID: PMC6204469 DOI: 10.1016/j.ihj.2018.06.019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian Heart J ISSN: 0019-4832
Demographic data and laboratory data in the studied groups.
| Variable | Patients | Control | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male/female) | 13/26 | 5/10 | – |
| Age | 18.2 ± 1.7 | 18.8 ± 2.3 | NS |
| Insulin dose | 77.3 ± 17.3 | – | – |
| Disease duration | 9.6 ± 3.9 | – | – |
| BMI | 26.2 ± 3.9 | 22.8 ± 3.3 | <0.05 |
| SBP | 120.7 ± 7.4 | 115 ± 74 | <0.05 |
| DBP | 78.7 ± 5.7 | 74.7 ± 6.4 | <0.05 |
| TC | 156.2 ± 20.1 | 149.5 ± 25.8 | NS |
| LDL | 81.3 ± 24.1 | 77.8 ± 11.8 | NS |
| HDL | 45.9 ± 6.2 | 51.1 ± 5.9 | <0.01 |
| TG | 82.8 ± 29.9 | 90.7 ± 12.6 | NS |
| FBS | 170.8 ± 55.8 | 81.1 ± 8.6 | <0.01 |
| PPBS | 205.7 ± 61.1 | 103 ± 9.9 | <0.01 |
| HbA1c | 8.9 ± 1.7 | 5.7 ± 0.4 | <0.01 |
| Hb | 13 ± 1.3 | 12.4 ± 0.5 | <0.01 |
| Uric acid | 4.8 ± 5.5 | 0.9 ± 0.8 | <0.01 |
| S.cr | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | NS |
| ESR | 23.2 ± 6.1 | 17.7 ± 3.9 | <0.01 |
Functional capacity parameters in the studied groups.
| Variable | Patients | Control | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| RHR | 96.1 ± 13.8 | 80.1 ± 11.2 | <0.01 |
| PHR | 183.4 ± 29.2 | 179.7 ± 11.1 | NS |
| METs | 12.2 ± 2.3 | 11.9 ± 1.4 | NS |
The conventional echocardiographic parameters for the studied groups.
| Variable | Patients | Control | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| LVSd | 8.5 ± 1.8 | 8.3 ± 1.1 | NS |
| LVPWd | 8.2 ± 1.8 | 8.8 ± 1.1 | NS |
| LVEF | 69.2 ± 13.1 | 68.6 ± 2.6 | NS |
| LVFS | 39.3 ± 8.3 | 40.2 ± 4.6 | NS |
| LVEDD | 44.95 ± 6.5 | 43.5 ± 3.5 | NS |
| LVESD | 24.4 ± 4.6 | 23.4 ± 2.5 | NS |
| EF | 54.9 ± 4.3 | 54.9 ± 4.7 | NS |
| AoD | 25.3 ± 2.7 | 26.2 ± 2.3 | NS |
| RVOT prox(cm) | 25.4 ± 4.4 | 25.7 ± 3.4 | NS |
| RVOT dist(cm) | 18.4 ± 3.0 | 19.6 ± 2.2 | NS |
| RVD1 | 32.7 ± 5.8 | 31.8 ± 6.0 | NS |
| RVD2 | 26.4 ± 4.6 | 29.4 ± 6.7 | NS |
| RVD3 | 68.2 ± 7.1 | 64.9 ± 6.2 | NS |
| TAPSE | 23.4 ± 4.1 | 23.8 ± 2.7 | NS |
| RVEDD | 17.3 ± 3.3 | 18.2 ± 3.9 | NS |
| RVESD | 9.8 ± 2.3 | 10.3 ± 2.2 | NS |
| RV FAC | 43.4 ± 6.7 | 43.1 ± 6.2 | NS |
Doppler, and TDI for LV and RV in the studied groups.
| Variable | Patients | Control | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doppler | |||
| RV A vel | 76.2 ± 19.5 | 55.2 ± 15.1 | <0.05 |
| RV E vel | 67.1 ± 15.8 | 62.0 ± 12.8 | NS |
| RV E/A | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | <0.05 |
| LV E vel | 82.6 ± 11.1 | 87.2 ± 8.9 | NS |
| LV A vel | 62.2 ± 10.4 | 69.0 ± 11.7 | NS |
| LV E/A | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | NS |
| TDI | |||
| RV Smv | 9.5 ± 2.2 | 11.5 ± 1.8 | <0.01 |
| RV Emv | −8.7 ± 4.5 | −8.4 ± 8.1 | NS |
| RV Amv | −8.0 ± 3.4 | −5.5 ± 3.5 | <0.05 |
| E/Em ratio | 7.9 ± 3.2 | 5.2 ± 0.7 | < 0.01 |
Fig. 1Representing relation between diastolic function in group 1 assessed by Doppler and tissue Doppler echo.
Factors that are significantly related to RV diastolic dysfunction in the diabetic group assessed by TDI.
| Variable | E/Em>6.0 | E/Em< 6.0 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| TAPSE | 24.4 ± 3.9 | 21.5 ± 3.8 | <0.05 |
| RVESD | 10.4 ± 2.4 | 8.7 ± 1.8 | <0.05 |
| RV E velocity | 74.2 ± 12.1 | 52.9 ± 12.6 | <0.01 |
| RV A velocity | 72.6 ± 17.7 | 56.5 ± 19 | <0.05 |
| RV Em velocity | −7.1 ± 4.6 | −11.8 ± 2 | <0.01 |
| TD A velocity | 59.8 ± 10.05 | 67.1 ± 9.7 | <0.05 |
Comparison between the two groups as regards the RV function assessed by TDI and strain.
| Variable | Patients | Control | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| RV GLS | −14.0 ± 6.9 | −22.7 ± 2.5 | <0.01 |
| RV Smv | 9.5 ± 2.2 | 11.5 ± 1.8 | <0.01 |
| RV TDI strain | −26.0 ± 17.1 | −32.4 ± 8.2 | NS |
Fig. 2Colour Tissue Doppler Imaging for assessment of RV function at septal &lateral Tricuspid annulus from the apical 4Ch view (patient No 16).
Fig. 3RV strain by2D STE from apical 4Ch view shows impaired RV-GLS in patient No 3.
Fig. 4The relation between RV-GLS and RV diastolic function assessed by TDI.
Fig. 5Relation between FBS and RV systolic function within the diabetic group.