4.6 Article

Serum triglycerides are a predictive factor for the development and the progression of renal and retinal complications in patients with type 1 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES & METABOLISM
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 43-51

出版社

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/S1262-3636(07)70088-5

关键词

diabetic nephropathy; diabetic retinopathy; lipids; microvascular complications; triglycerides; type 1 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: It is controversial that serum lipids affect the development and progression of microvascular complications in patients with type 1 diabetes. Methodes: We prospectively followed 297 patients with type 1 diabetes without end-stage renal disease for 7 years (range: 2-10). Serum lipids were measured at baseline (total and HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and calculated LDL-cholesterol, Lipoprotein (a)). The primary end-point was the occurrence of a renal event and the secondary end-point was the occurrence of a retinal event, defined as the progression to a higher stage of diabetic nephropathy or retinopathy, respectively. Results: Serum triglycericle (TG) levels were higher in patients who progressed in nephropathy than in those who did not [median 1.21 (range 0.41-2.96) vs 0.91 (0.31-11.07) mmol/l; p = 0.0037] and in those who developed retinal events than,in those who did not [1.05 (0.46-8.27) vs 0.87 mmol/l (0.31-11.07); p = 0.0302], both in the whole cohort and in patients with normoalbuminuria at baseline. After adjustment for systolic blood pressure.(SBP), diabetes duration, gender, stage of complications at baseline and glycohemoglobin (HbA1c), the relative risk for progression was 2.01 (95% Cl: 1.07-3.77) for nephropathy and 2.30 (95% Cl: 1.03-5.12) for retinopathy for patients having serum TG in the highest tertile, compared to the others. This result persisted when only patients with normoalbuminuria were considered. Conclusion: High triglyceride levels are an independent predictive factor of both renal and retinal complications in patients with type 1 diabetes.

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