4.3 Article

Abnormal echocardiography in patients with type 2 diabetes and relation to symptoms and clinical characteristics

Journal

DIABETES & VASCULAR DISEASE RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages 321-330

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1479164116645583

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes; echocardiography; complications; heart failure

Funding

  1. Carl and Ellen Hertz foundation
  2. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF12OC1015904, NNF16OC0020224, NNF15OC0016230] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of echocardiographic abnormalities and their relation to clinical characteristics and cardiac symptoms in a large, contemporary cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes. Results: A total of 1030 patients with type 2 diabetes participated. Echocardiographic abnormalities were present in 513 (49.8%) patients, mainly driven by a high prevalence of diastolic dysfunction 178 (19.4%), left ventricular hypertrophy 213 (21.0%) and left atrial enlargement, 200 (19.6%). The prevalence increased markedly with age from 31.1% in the youngest group (<55years) to 73.9% in the oldest group (>75years) (p<0.001) and was equally distributed among the sexes (p=0.76). In univariate analyses, electrocardiographic abnormalities, age, body mass index, known coronary heart disease, hypertension, albuminuria, diabetes duration and creatinine were associated with abnormal echocardiography along with dyspnoea and characteristic chest pain (p<0.05 for all). Neither of the cardiac symptoms nor clinical characteristics had sufficient sensitivity and specificity to accurately identify patients with abnormal echocardiography. Conclusion: Echocardiographic abnormalities are very common in outpatients with type 2 diabetes, but neither cardiac symptoms nor clinical characteristics are effective to identify patients with echocardiographic abnormalities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available