4.7 Article

Retinopathy predicts cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetic men and women

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 292-299

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc06-1747

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To investigate the association of retinopathy with the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in type 2 diabetic subjects in a population-based 18-year follow-up study with particular emphasis on sex differences. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Our study cohort comprised 425 Finnish type 2 diabetic men and 399 type 2 diabetic women who were free of CVD at baseline. The findings were classified based on standardized clinical ophthalmoscopy to categories of no retinopathy, background retinopathy, and proliferative retinopathy. The study end points were all-cause, CVD, and CHD mortality. RESULTS - Adjusted Cox model hazard ratios (95% CIS) of all-cause, CVD, and CHD mortality in men were 1.34 (0.98-1.83),1.30 (0.86-1.96), and 1.18 (0.74-1.89), respectively, for background retinopathy and 3.05 (1.70-5.45), 3.32 (1.61-6.78), and 2.54 (1.07-6.04), respectively, for proliferative retinopathy and in women 1.61 (1.17-2.22), 1.71 (1.17-2.51), and 1.79 (1.13-2.85), respectively, for background retinopathy and 2.92 (1-41-6.06), 3.17 (1.38-7.30), and 4.98 (2.06-12.06), respectively, for proliferative retinopathy. CONCLUSIONS - Proliferative retinopathy in both sexes and background retinopathy in women predicted all-cause, CVD, and CHD death. These associations were independent of current smoking, hypertension, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, glycemic control of diabetes, duration of diabetes, and proteinuria. This suggests the presence of common background pathways for diabetic microvascular and macrovascular disease other than those included in the conventional risk assessment of CVD. The sex difference observed in the association of background retinopathy with macrovascular disease warrants closer examination.

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

4.7
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