4.7 Article

Advanced glycation end products and endothelial dysfunction in type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 1055-1059

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.6.1055

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - Data from experimental studies have suggested that the increased formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) is one of the causes of endothelial dysfunction in diabetes. This study was performed to investigate whether changes in endothelium-dependent vasodilation, a marker of endothelial function, were related to serum AGEs concentrations in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - For this study, 170 patients with type 2 diabetes and 83 healthy nondiabetic control subjects of similar age were recruited. Serum AGEs were assayed by competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Endothelium-dependent and -independent vasodilation of the brachial artery was measured by high-resolution vascular ultrasound. RESULTS - Serum AGES were increased in diabetic patients compared with control subjects (4.6 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.1 +/- 0.8 unit/ml, P < 0.01), and both endothelium-dependent (5.1 +/- 2.5 vs. 9.1+/- 4.1%; P < 0.01) and endothelium-independent vasodilation (13.2 +/- 4.6 vs. 16.4 +/- 5.5%; P < 0.01) were impaired. On univariate analysis of all subjects, serum AGES correlated with endothelium-dependent vasodilation (r = -0.51, P < 0.01); a weaker association was found with endothelium-independent vasodilation (r = -0.24, P < 0.01). On multiple regression analyses including age, sex, smoking status, and plasma lipids, only serum AGEs remained a significant independent determinant of endothelium-dependent vasodilation (r(2) = 0.34, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS - increased serum concentrations of AGEs in patients with type 2 diabetes is associated with endothelial dysfunction, independent of other cardiovascular risk factors. Further studies to determine whether treatment targeting AGES will lead to an amelioration of endothelial dysfunction are warranted.

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