4.7 Article

Cardiac autonomic nervous dysfunction in diabetic patients with a mitochondrial DNA mutation - Assessment by heart rate variability

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 25, 期 12, 页码 2308-2313

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.12.2308

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To elucidate the degree and characteristics of cardiac autonomic nervous dysfunction in diabetic patients associated with a mitochondrial DNA mutation at base pair 3243. Research Design and Methods-We investigated heart rate variability using 24-h Holter monitoring in 10 diabetic patients with the mutation compared with 55 ordinary diabetic patients and 45 nondiabetic control subjects. Results-Age and sex were similar in the three groups. Between patients with the mutation and ordinary diabetic patients, the duration of diabetes and blood glycemic levels were not different. In the time domain analysis of heart rate variability, patients with the mutation and ordinary diabetic patients had significantly smaller SDNN index and pNN50 than control subjects. Compared with ordinary diabetic patients, patients with the mutation had smaller SDNN, index (P<0.02), but rMSSD and pNN50 were not different. In the frequency domain analysis, total, low frequency (LF), and high frequency (HF) spectra were significantly smaller in patients with the mutation and ordinary diabetic patients than in control subjects. Compared with ordinary diabetic patients, patients with the mutation had smaller total and LF spectra (P<0.02). However, HF spectra were not significantly different. Notably, the LF/HF spectra ratio was lower in patients with the mutation than in ordinary diabetic patients and control subjects (P<0.05), but this ratio was similar in ordinary diabetic patients and control subjects. Conclusions-Our results suggest that diabetic patients with the mitochondrial DNA, mutation have more severely impaired cardiac autonomic nervous function with sympathovagal imbalance, as compared with ordinary diabetic patients.

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