4.7 Article

Hemodynamic effects of fenofibrate and coenzyme Q10 in type 2 diabetic subjects with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 31, Issue 8, Pages 1502-1509

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc08-0118

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - To investigate the effects of fenofibrate and coenzyme Q(10) (CoQ) on diastolic function, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), and heart rate (HR) in type 2 diabetic subjects with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We randomized, double-blind, 74 subjects to fenofibrate 160 mg daily, CoQ 200 mg daily, fenofibrate 160 mg plus CoQ 200 mg daily, or matching placebo for 6 months. Echocardiography (including tissue Doppler imaging) and 24-h ABP and HR monitoring were performed pre- and postintervention. RESULTS - Neither fenofibrate nor CoQ, alone or in combination, altered early diastolic mitral annular myocardial relaxation velocity (E'), early-to-late mitral inflow velocity ratio (E/A), deceleration time, isovolumic relaxation time, or the ratio of early mitral flow velocity to early diastolic mitral annular myocardial relaxation velocity (E/E') compared with placebo (P > 0.05). Fenofibrate and CoQ interactively (P = 0.001) lowered 24-h systolic blood pressure (-3.4 +/- 0.09 mmHg, P = 0.010), with a prominent nocturnal effect (-5.7 +/- 1.5 mmHg, P = 0.006). Fenofibrate (-1.3 +/- 0.5 mmHg, P = 0.013) and CoQ (-2.2 +/- 0.5 mmHg, P < 0.001) independently lowered 24-h diastolic blood pressure. Fenofibrate reduced 24-h HR (-3.3 +/- 0.5 beats/min, P < 0.001), but CoQ had no effect on HR. CONCLUSIONS - in type 2 diabetic subjects with LVDD, neither fenofibrate nor CoQ, alone or in combination, improved diastolic function significantly. However, fenofibrate and CoQ independently and interactively lowered 24-h blood pressure, and fenofibrate alone reduced 24-h HR.

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