4.7 Article

High incidence of glucose intolerance in Asian-Indian subjects with acute coronary syndrome

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 2492-2496

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.28.10.2492

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - The risk of diabetes and coronary heart disease is high in Asian Indians. In this study, we aim to assess 1) the prevalence of hyperglycemia in incident acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 2) the effect of glycemia on the outcome, and 3) the association of plasma levels of insulin and proinsulin with ACS. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A total of 146 nondiabetic subjects (121 men, 25 women) with ACS admitted to two hospitals in I year were enrolled. Random blood glucose at admission and a standard oral glucose tolerance test within 3 days were done. Glucose tolerance was categorized as normal glucose tolerance, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or impaired fasting glucose, and diabetes. Diabetes was arbitrarily classified further as undiagnosed (HbA(1c) [AlC] >6.0%) or possibly stress diabetes (AIC <6.0%). Subjects not on anudiabetic treatment were reassessed with a glucose tolerance test between I and 2 months. Fasting plasma specific insulin, proinsulin, their molar ratios, and insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment) were estimated at baseline. RESULTS - Mean age of the cohort was 55 +/- 10.6 (SD) years. At baseline, 24 (16.4%) had normal glucose tolerance, 67 (45.9%) had IGT or impaired fasting glucose, and 55 (37%) had diabetes (35 [24%] were undiagnosed and 20 [13-7%] had stress diabetes). At follow-up, 53 of 92 responders (57.6%) continued to have IGT or diabetes. Mean baseline plasma insulin, proinsulin and its ratios, and insulin resistance were higher than normal in all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS - Nondiabetic Asian Indians showed a high prevalence of hyperglycemia following ACS. ACS was associated with insulin resistance and increased levels of specific insulin, proinsulin, and high proinsulin-to-insulin ratios.

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