| Literature DB >> 31211767 |
Lin-Lin Chen1, Jun-Xiu Zhai1, Jie Kang1, You-Shan Li1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study evaluated the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for the assessment of skeletal muscle perfusion in diabetes mellites. MATERIAL AND METHODS Electronic databases (Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid, and PubMed) were searched for required articles, and studies were selected by following pre-determined eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses of mean differences or standardized mean differences (SMD) were performed to evaluate the significance of difference in contrast-enhanced ultrasonography measured muscle perfusion indices between patients with diabetes and healthy individuals or between basal and final values of perfusion indices after insulin manipulation or physical exercise in patients with diabetes or healthy individuals. RESULTS There were 15 studies included, with 279 patients with diabetes and 230 healthy individuals in total. The age of the study patients with diabetes mellitus was 55.8 years (95% CI: 49.6 years, 61.9 years) and these patients had disease for 11.4 years (95% CI: 7.7 years, 15.1 years). The percentage of males in group of patients with diabetes was 66% (95% CI: 49%, 84%), body mass index was 29.4 kg/m² (95% CI: 26.5 kg/m², 32.3 kg/m²), hemoglobin A1c was 7.3% (95% CI: 6.7%, 7.9%), and fasting plasma glucose was 149 kg/m² (95% CI: 118 kg/m², 179 kg/m²). Time to peak intensity after provocation was significantly higher in patients with diabetes than in healthy individuals (SMD 1.18 [95% CI: 0.60, 1.76]; P<0.00001). In patients with diabetes, insulin administration did not improve contrast-enhanced ultrasonography measured muscle perfusion indices but exercise improved muscle perfusion but at a level that was statistically non-significant (SMD between basal and post-exercise values (1.03 [95% CI: -0.14, 2.20]; P=0.08). In healthy individuals, lipids in addition to insulin administration was associated with significantly reduced blood volume and blood flow. CONCLUSIONS Our review showed that the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography showed that diabetes mellitus was associated with altered muscle perfusion in which insulin-mediated metabolic changes played an important role.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31211767 PMCID: PMC6597144 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.915252
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1A flowchart of study screening and selection process.
Important characteristics of the included studies.
| Study | n DM | n Hty | DD (years) | Age (years) | % Males | BMI (kg/m2) | Hb (%) | FPG | CEU brand | Contrast agent | Patient State for CEU | Infusion (mL/min)/volume (mL) | ROI muscle | Vein |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chai 2011 | 0 | 11 | 21.7±0.4 | 72.7 | 23.2±0.7 | SONOS 7500 | Definity | Forearm flexor | Antecubital | |||||
| Chan 2009 | 9 | 0 | 42.6±8.3 | 89 | 23.1±10 | 7.9±1 | SONOS 7500 | Definity | Rest | 1.5 | Forearm flexor | |||
| Chan 2011 | 17 | 0 | 20±12 | 40±8 | 26.3±3.3 | 8±2.3 | SONOS 7500 | Definity | Rest | 1.5 | Forearm flexor | |||
| Clerk 2006 | 0 | 21 | 37±3 | Phillips HDI 5000 | Definity | Sitting | Forearm flexor | |||||||
| Duerschmied 2008 | 10 | 10 | 69.9±12 | 60 | LOGIQ 9 ultrasound | SonoVue | Rest | 4.8 bolus | Calf (gastro-cnemius) | Antecubital | ||||
| Duerschmied 2009 | 52 | 58 | 68.7±11 | 71.2 | LOGIQ 9 Ultrasound system | SonoVue | Rest | 4.8 bolus | Calf | Antecubital | ||||
| Emanuel 2018 | 12 | 0 | 55±6 | 66.7 | 33.1±2 | 6.5±0.5 | 144±36 | Siemens-Acuson Sequoia 512 | SonoVue | Supine | 1.5/10 | Vastus lateralis | ||
| Irace 2017 | 25 | 12 | 17±9 | 38±13 | 76 | 24.6±3.1 | 7.6±0.7 | 148±64 | Philips HD 11 XE | SonoVue | Rest | 1.2/5 | Forearm flexor | Antecubital |
| Keske 2009 | 0 | 8 | 41±3 | 33.7±1 | Phillips HDI 5000 | Definity | Rest | 3/ | Forearm flexor | Antecubital | ||||
| Liu J 2011 | 0 | 22 | 22.5±1 | 45.5 | 22.5±0.5 | SONOS 7505 | Definity | Left Decubitus | 1.5/30 | Forearm flexor | Antecubital | |||
| Liu Z 2009 | 0 | 12 | 23.3±1.4 | 33.3 | 21.8±0.7 | SONOS 7506 | Definity | Supine | 1/30 | Forearm flexor | Antecubital | |||
| Lindner 2008 | 19 | 26 | 52±11 | 57.9 | 27.2±6 | 8.2±4.6 | Phillips HDI-5000cv | Definity | 0.2–0.27 | Plantar flexor | ||||
| Russell 2017 | 17 | 0 | 7±1 | 52±2 | 64.7 | 31.2±1.1 | 7.7±0.3 | 180±14 | 5000cv | Definity | Rest/ exercise | Forearm flexor | ||
| Song 2014 | 58 | 30 | 6.2±6.8 | 70±9 | 58.6 | My-lab90 scanner (Esaote) | SonoVue | Rest | 2.4 bolus | Calf | Left |forearm vein | |||
| Womack 2009 | 22 | 20 | 2.5±4 | 53 | 14 | 34±6 | 6.9±2.2 | 117±60 | Phillips HDI-5000cv | Definity | Rest/ exercise | 0.12–0.16 | Forearm flexor (pollicus longus) | Antecubital |
BMI – body mass index; CEU – contrast enhanced ultrasound; DD – disease duration; DM – diabetes mellitus; FPG – fasting plasma glucose; Hb – glycosylated hemoglobin; Hty – healthy; ROI – region of interest.
Definity (lipid perflutren microspheres containing octafluoropropane gas); Sonovue (lipid bubbles containing sulphur hexafluoride gas).
Quality assessment of the included studies.
| Criteria | Reference number of the study | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | |
| Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Did the authors include a sample size justification? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Were controls selected or recruited from the same or similar population that gave rise to the cases (including the same timeframe)? | NA | N | NA | NA | Y | Y | N | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | Y |
| Were the definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, algorithms or processes used to identify or select cases and controls valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls? | NA | N | NA | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | Y | |
| If less than 100 percent of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Was there use of concurrent controls? | NA | N | NA | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | Y |
| Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure/risk occurred prior to the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Were the measures of exposure/risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Were the assessors of exposure/risk blinded to the case or control status of participants? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
N – no; NA – not applicable; Y – yes.
Figure 2A forest graph showing the outcomes of a meta-analysis of standardized mean difference between patients with diabetes and healthy individuals in CEU measured muscle perfusion indices. In study identities abbreviations are as follows. BF – blood flow; FR – flow reserve; Exer – exercise; LV – large vessel; SV – small vessel; TAPV – time average peak velocity.
Figure 3A forest graph showing the outcomes of a meta-analysis of standardized mean difference between basal and post intervention values of muscle perfusion indices in patients with diabetes. In study identities abbreviations are as follows. BABF – brachial artery blood flow; MBF – microvascular blood flow; MBV – microvascular blood volume; MFV – microvascular flow velocity.
Figure 4A forest graph showing the outcomes of a meta-analysis of standardized mean difference in mean changes in muscle perfusion indices between insulin and insulin-lipid infusion in healthy individuals. In insulin-lipid group, insulin administration was followed by lipids administration to observe changes in muscle perfusion whereas in insulin-saline group changes were observed after insulin administration only.