4.7 Article

Pancreas transplantation improves vascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 27, 期 7, 页码 1706-1711

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.7.1706

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - Pancreas transplantation (PTX) normalizes glucose and improves microvascular complications, but its impact on macrovascular disease is still debated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS- Carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), shown to correlate with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and events, was determined prospectively by ultrasonography in successful pancreas transplant recipients to evaluate the effect of PTX on CVD risk. Carotid IMT and CVD risk factors of pancreas transplant recipients (n = 25) were compared with three groups: individuals with type 1 diabetes without significant nephropathy (n = 20), nondiabetic kidney transplant recipients (n = 16), and normal control subjects (n 32). Mean age of pancreas transplant recipients at the nine of transplantation was 42.4 +/- 1.2 years (mean +/- SE) and duration of diabetes was 25.9 +/- 1.4 years. RESULTS - After PTX, HbA(1c) level (P < 0.0001) decreased to normal and, whereas creatinine level (P = 0.0002) decreased, it remained elevated compared with normal control subjects (P < 0.05). Blood pressure, BMI, fasting lipid levels, smoking frequency, and use of hypolipidemic agents were unchanged. Mean carotid IMT was increased in pancreas transplant candidates but decreased by 1.8 +/- 0.1 year after PTX (P = 0.0068), no longer different from that in normal control subjects or patients with type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS - Carotid IMT improves after successful PTX within 2 years of the procedure, with normalization of HbA(1c) and improved renal function, independent of changes in lipid levels, BMI, blood pressure, smoking, or use of hypolipidemic agents. This study suggests that CVD risk, future events, and Mortality should improve after PTX in the absence of other significant, untreated CVD risk factors.

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