| Literature DB >> 31562737 |
Michał Podgórski1, Katarzyna Szatko1, Małgorzata Stańczyk2, Monika Pawlak-Bratkowska2, Michał Fila3, Ewa Bieniek4, Marcin Tkaczyk2, Piotr Grzelak1, Maciej Łukaszewski1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) often develop atherosclerosis at an early age. In the subclinical stage of the process, minimal/non-morphological changes can be noticed, but the arterial wall function can be impaired. Applanation tonometry allows to assess the arterial tree stiffness; however, the Two-Dimensional Speckle Tracking (2DST) is an increasingly accepted alternative. This study evaluated arterial wall stiffness using these 2 techniques in children with T1DM. MATERIAL AND METHODS We performed applanation tonometry and carotid arteries sonography with evaluation of the carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) and use of the 2DST in 50 children with T1DM and in 50 healthy sex- and age-matched controls. We also assessed the reliability of 2DST in 10 random subjects. RESULTS Children with T1DM had increased arterial wall stiffness, which was confirmed by tonometry (PWV: p=0.0386) and 2DST (Strain: p=0.0004; Strain rate: p=0.0081). There was no significant difference in cIMT between groups (0.45±0.06 vs. 0.43±0.05, p=0.073 in children with T1DM and controls, respectively). 2DST presented good intraclass correlation coefficient between researchers and within a single researcher. CONCLUSIONS Children with T1DM presenting with subclinical stage of atherosclerosis were found to have arterial wall stiffening. The 2DST, the same as applanation tonometry, allows to recognize this condition but in a more accessible and reproducible manner.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31562737 PMCID: PMC6784626 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.916466
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Arterial Analysis™ software with ROI in left common carotid artery and plots of strain and strain rate during 3 consecutive heart beats.
Clinical characteristics of the patients in both groups.
| Feature | Children with DMT1 | Control | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age [years (SD)] | 13.4 (3.8) | 13.1 (4.1) | 0.7894 | |
| Gender | Females [n (%)] | 24 (48) | 25 (50) | 0.8414 |
| Males [n (%)] | 26 (52) | 25 (50) | ||
| BMI [kg/m2 (SD)] | 23.5 (3.7) | 22.6 (3.1) | 0.1906 | |
| SBP arm [mmHg (SD)] | 113 (9) | 118 (12) | 0.1331 | |
| DBP arm [mmHg (SD)] | 67 (9) | 73 (11) | 0.0981 | |
| SBP central [mmHg (SD)] | 97 (8) | 101 (9) | 0.0563 | |
| DBP central [mmHg (SD)] | 68 (9) | 71 (7) | 0.2367 | |
| Mean IMCT [mm (SD)] | 0.45 (0.06) | 0.43 (0.05) | 0.0732 | |
| PWV [m/s (SD)] | 4.04 (0.61) | 3.72 (0.98) | 0.0386 | |
| AI [% (SD)] | 18.8 (9.5) | 21.2 (10.1) | 0.2239 | |
| Strain [% (SD)] | 13.7 (3.8) | 15.4 (3.5) | 0.0220 | |
| Strain rate [1/s (SD)] | 1.71 (0.45) | 1.95 (0.61) | 0.0274 | |
Statistically significant differences;
DBP – diastolic blood pressure; SBP – systolic blood pressure; IMCT – intima media complex thickness; PVW – pulse wave velocity; AI – augmentation index.
Correlation between arterial wall stiffness markers.
| Strain | Strain rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | P-value | R | P-value | |
| PWV | 0.6294 | <0.001 | 0.5979 | <0.001 |
| AI | 0.5886 | <0.001 | 0.5826 | <0.001 |
PVW – pulse wave velocity; AI – augmentation index.
Figure 2Plots of correlation between 2DST strain parameters and results of applanation tonometry.