4.1 Article

Impact of long-term glycemic variability on development of atrial fibrillation in type 2 diabetic patients

期刊

ANATOLIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 410-416

出版社

AVES
DOI: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2017.7938

关键词

hemoglobin A1c variability; type 2 diabetes mellitus; atrial fibrillation

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [81670293]
  2. Shanghai Shenkang hospital development center [16CR2034B]
  3. Shanghai municipal commission of health and family planning [2014ZYJB0501]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: It is well known that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a high risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). The current study was designed to determine the relationship between long-term glycemic variability and incidence of new-onset AF in T2DM patients. Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2009, we conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients with T2DM referred to our hospital. In 505 consecutive patients without any medical history of AF at baseline, the relationship between hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) variability and future AF incidence was evaluated, with adjustments for other possible confounding factors. HbA1c variability was determined by standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV). Results: Over a median of 6.9-year follow-up period, 48 patients (9.5%) developed incident AF. Multiple cox regression revealed that higher HbA1c-SD (HR: 1.726, 95% CI: 1.104-1.830, p=0.001) or HbA1c-CV (HR: 1.241, 95% CI: 1.029-1.497, p=0.024) remained the remarkable predictor of new-onset AF after adjusting for age, body mass index, left ventricular mass index, and left atrium diameter. Receiver operating curve analysis identified thresholds for HbA1c-SD (0.665%, sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 54.9%) and HbA1c-CV (8.970%, sensitivity 73.8%, specificity 47.1%) to detect new-onset AF development. Conclusion: In patients with T2DM, higher HbA1c variability is significantly associated with future AF development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据