4.1 Article

'Warm-up' phenomenon in diabetic patients with stable angina treated with diet or sulfonylureas

期刊

CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 455-462

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCA.0b013e3282a30676

关键词

coronary artery disease; diabetes mellitus; exercise testing; ischaemic preconditioning; sulfonylureas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Classic sulfonyloureas (SUs) are known to attenuate ischaemic preconditioning. Gliclazide is an SU agent believed to be more protective. We assessed the effects of diet glibenclamide, or gliclazide on the warm-up effect in type 2 diabetic patients with stable angina. Methods The study group consisted of 64 men, aged 54 5 years: 17 patients without diabetes (G 1) and 47 diabetic patients: 16 patients treated with glibenclamide (G 11), 16 with gliclazide (G 111) and 15 patients treated with diet (G IV). After the baseline positive exercise test (ET1), all patients reexercised after 30-min rest (ET2). We analysed exercise duration (ED, s), time to 1 mm ST depression (T-STD, s), max STD (mm), heart rate-systolic blood pressure product at 1 mm STD, or ischaemic threshold (mmHg/min x 100) and the total ischaemic time (s). Results In G 1, all analysed variables improved significantly during ET2 relative to ET1. Glibenclamide (G 11) completely abolished the protective effect of exercise-induced ischaemia because only ED increased during ET2 (431 vs. 451, P < 0.05). In G III, however, ED (486 vs. 537, P < 0.001), T-STD (364 vs. 388, P < 0.05) and max STID (2.5 vs. 2.0, P < 0.05) improved significantly during ET2, whereas ischaemic threshold and total ischaemic time did not (PNS). In G IV, similar to G 1, all variables improved significantly during ET2 relative to ET1. Conclusion Warm-up effect is preserved in diabetic patients with stable angina treated with diet partially preserved in gliciazide-treated and abolished in glibenclamide-treated patients. Coron Artety Dis 18:455-462 (c) 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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