4.4 Article

Effects of chronic hyperglycaemia on incident stroke in Hong Kong Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes

Journal

DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 220-226

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.675

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background It remains unclear whether hyperglycaemia as measured by HbA(1c) is a significant risk factor for stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods A case-control study nested in a prospective cohort with I : 3 controls matched on age, gender, systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was conducted. The case group included 105 patients who developed incident stroke during 2.88 years (SD: 1.59) of follow-up of 4150 T2DM patients and 299 matched patients without incident stroke, used as the control group. Stratified Cox proportional hazard regression was used to obtain hazard ratio (HR). Results Median age was 71 years (IQR: 9.0 for the case and 10.0 for the control). HbA(1c), was significantly higher in the cases than in the controls (median 8.0% [IQR: 2.0] versus 7.2% [2.1], p < 0.0001). After controlling for smoker status, haematocrit, drug treatments and other covariates, 1% increase in HbA(1c) was associated with 1.49 (95% CI: 1.18-1.88, p = 0.0008) folds risk of occurrence of incident stroke. Patients with a history of coronary heart disease (CHD) were also at increased risk of stroke (HR: 8.25, 95% Cl: 2.22-30.73, p = 0.0016). Smoker status and haematocrit were marginally significant predictors of incident stroke. Every adjusted month using lipid-lowering drugs was significantly associated with reduced risk of incident stroke (HR: 0.95, 95% Cl: 0.90-0.99, p = 0.0199). Similar analysis using ACEI or ARB as a drug group was marginally significant (p = 0.0555). Conclusion Chronic hyperglycaemia is a risk factor of stroke in Chinese patients with T2DM. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available