4.5 Article

Left and right ventricular systolic function impairment in type 1 diabetic young adults assessed by 2D speckle tracking echocardiography

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 438-446

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jev164

Keywords

diabetic cardiomyopathy; type 1 diabetes mellitus; ventricular function; speckle tracking echocardiography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims Subclinical left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) systolic dysfunction has been proved in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). There is lack of uniform data on systolic myocardial function in type 1 DM. The aim of this study was to evaluate LV and RV function with 2D speckle tracking echocardiography (2D STE) in adult type 1 diabetic patients. Methods and results Totally, 50 patients with type 1 DM and 50 control subjects in the same range of age were prospectively evaluated. The 2D STE assessment of LV longitudinal, radial, circumferential strain and RV free-wall longitudinal strain was performed. In diabetic group, left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS), left ventricular global circumferential strain (LVGCS), left ventricular radial strain at basal level (LVRS-basal), and right ventricular free-wall global longitudinal strain (RVGLS) were significantly lower compared with the controls: LVGLS (-20.3 +/- 2.0% vs. -22.2 +/- 1.8%, P < 0.001), LVGCS (-21.1 +/- 2.5% vs. -22.2 +/- 2.4%, P < 0.05), LVRS-basal (50.5% +/- 11.5 vs. 57.1% +/- 17.0, P < 0.05), and RVGLS (-30.1% +/- 3.5 vs. -32.7% +/- 3.9, P < 0.01). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the only independent predictor of reduced LVGLS was low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [odds ratio 3.65 (95% confidence interval: 1.27-10.5), P = 0.014]. Conclusion Type 1 DM is associated with subclinical LV systolic dysfunction and worse RV systolic function, which can be detected with 2D STE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available