4.7 Article

Impaired stroke volume and aerobic capacity in female adolescents with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus

Journal

DIABETOLOGIA
Volume 51, Issue 7, Pages 1317-1320

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-008-1012-1

Keywords

adolescents; aerobic capacity; stroke volume; type 1 diabetes mellitus; type 2 diabetes mellitus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim/hypothesis This study was designed to determine whether type 2 diabetic adolescents have reduced aerobic capacity and to investigate the role of cardiac output and arteriovenous oxygen difference (a-vO(2)) in their exercise response. Methods Female adolescents (age 12-18 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 8) and type 1 diabetes mellitus (n = 12) and obese (n = 10) and non-obese (n = 10) non-diabetic controls were recruited for this study. Baseline data included maximal aerobic capacity (cycle ergometer) and body composition. Cardiac output and a-vO(2) were determined at rest and during submaximal exercise. Results Diabetic groups had lower aerobic capacity than non-diabetic groups (p < 0.05). Adolescents with type 2 diabetes had lower aerobic capacity than the type 1 diabetic group. Maximal heart rate was lower in the type 2 diabetic group (p < 0.05). Exercise stroke volume was 30-40% lower at 100 and 120 beats per min in the diabetic than in the non-diabetic groups (p < 0.05). The a-vO(2) value was not different in any condition. Conclusions and interpretation Type 2 diabetic adolescents have reduced aerobic capacity and reduced heart rate response to maximal exercise. Furthermore, type 2 and type 1 diabetic adolescent girls have a blunted exercise stroke volume response compared with non-diabetic controls. Central rather than peripheral mechanisms contribute to the reduced aerobic capacity in diabetic adolescents. Although of short duration, type 2 diabetes in adolescence is already affecting cardiovascular function in adolescents.

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