4.6 Article

Impaired fasting glucose is associated with increased arterial stiffness in elderly people without diabetes mellitus: The Rotterdam study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 397-404

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00614.x

关键词

arterial stiffness; glucose metabolism; older adults; population

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To study the association between impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and arterial stiffness in older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population-based study. SETTING: The Rotterdam Study, a Dutch population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand nine hundred eighty-seven subjects aged 60 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Arterial stiffness assessed by measuring common carotid arterial distensibility and glucose status classified into three categories: normal fasting glucose (NFG) (fasting glucose < 6.1 mmol/L), IFG (fasting glucose 6.1-6.9 mmol/L), and diabetes mellitus (DM). RESULTS: In the total cohort, common carotid distensibility decreased with increasing impairment of glucose metabolism. Subjects younger than 75 with IFG were comparable with subjects with NFG with respect to arterial stiffness. Subjects aged 75 and older with IFG had stiffer arteries than subjects with NFG, reaching the same arterial stiffness as subjects with DM. For subjects younger than 75, mean difference in distensibility coefficient between subjects with NFG and with IFG was 0.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) = - 0.04-0.05, P =.88) and between subjects with NFG and with DM was 1.2 (95% CI = 0.7-1.7, P <.001). For subjects aged 75 and older, the mean difference between these groups was 0.7 (95% CI = 0.2-1.2, P =.007) and 0.8 (0.3-1.4; P =.002), respectively. In the total cohort, fasting glucose was strongly associated with carotid distensibility (beta-coefficient = -0.29, P <.001). CONCLUSION: IFG is related to arterial stiffness in elderly subjects. An advanced stage of arterial stiffness, comparable with that of subjects with DM, is only reached at the age of 75.

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

4.6
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