4.7 Article

Increased aortic stiffness is persistent in type 1 diabetic women:: a follow-up study

Journal

DIABETOLOGIA
Volume 48, Issue 4, Pages 780-783

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-005-1685-7

Keywords

arterial compliance; arterial stiffness; arterial wall distensibility; echo-tracking sonography; gender difference; sex difference; type 1 diabetes mellitus; ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims/hypothesis: We have previously reported that women, not men, with type 1 diabetes have increased aortic stiffness. Increased arterial stiffness may explain why diabetic women have a particularly high risk of developing cardiovascular complications. We have now followed up our previously investigated patients after 7 years, with a view to evaluating whether the sex difference was persistent, and also evaluating the degree of progression with time and the relationship between stiffness versus intima media thickness of the aorta. Methods: Stiffness (beta) of the abdominal aorta (echo-tracking sonography) and intima media thickness (B-mode ultrasound) were assessed in 23 women and 19 men with type 1 diabetes and compared with matched healthy individuals. Results: At follow-up, aortic stiffness was still higher (60%) ( p= 0.0016) in diabetic than in control women, whereas there was no similar difference ( p= 0.4) between diabetic and control men. No progression of stiffness had occurred over the 7 years. At follow-up, the intima media thickness was increased and the internal diameter of the aorta was decreased in diabetic men and women without any sex-related difference. Conclusions/interpretation: The increased aortic stiffness that affects type 1 diabetic patients seems to be an early event that soon reaches a plateau without any further increase. Increased aortic stiffness in type 1 diabetic women seems to be a sex-specific functional disorder unrelated to the degree of underlying atherosclerosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available