4.3 Article

Can a simple test of functional capacity add to the clinical assessment of diabetes?

Journal

DIABETIC MEDICINE
Volume 33, Issue 8, Pages 1133-1139

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dme.13032

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. United States National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services [HHSN268200900 033C]
  2. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [R00HL096955]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To identify impairment in functional capacity associated with complicated and non-complicated diabetes using the 6-min walk distance test. Methods We enrolled 111 adults, aged >= 40 years, with Type 2 diabetes from a hospital facility and 150 healthy control subjects of similar age and sex from a community site in Lima, Peru. All participants completed a 6-min walk test. Results The mean age of the 261 participants was 58.3 years, and 43.3% were male. Among those with diabetes, 67 (60%) had non-complicated diabetes and 44 (40%) had complications such as peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy or nephropathy. The mean unadjusted 6-min walk distances were 376 m and 394 m in adults with and without diabetes complications, respectively, vs 469 m in control subjects (P<0.001). In multivariable regression, the subjects with diabetes complications walked 84 m less far (95% CI -104 to -63 m) and those without complications walked 60 m less far (-77 to -42 m) than did control subjects. When using HbA(1c) level as a covariate in multivariable regression, participants walked 13 m less far (-16.9 to -9.9 m) for each % increase in HbA(1c). Conclusions The subjects with diabetes had lower functional capacity compared with healthy control subjects with similar characteristics. Differences in 6-min walk distance were even apparent in the subjects without diabetes complications. Potential mechanisms that could explain this finding are early cardiovascular disease or deconditioning.

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