4.7 Article

Impairment of coronary microvascular dilation in response to cold presser-induced sympathetic stimulation in type 2 diabetic patients with abnormal stress thallium imaging

期刊

DIABETES
卷 50, 期 5, 页码 1180-1185

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.50.5.1180

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coronary microcirculation dysfunction may be associated with myocardial perfusion defects on thallium imaging in diabetic patients without coronary artery stenosis. Microvascular coronary adaptation to increased myocardial oxygen demand in response to sympathetic stimulation evoked by the cold presser test was examined in 22 type 2 diabetic patients with thallium imaging defects and in 15 control subjects. Both the diabetic patients and control subjects had angiographically normal coronary arteries and no other risk factors. Despite a similar increase in the rate-pressure product in the two groups (22.6 +/- 12.4% in diabetic patients and 31.8 +/- 8.2% in control subjects, NS), coronary blood flow increase in the left anterior descending artery (mean flow velocity measured by intracoronary Doppler multiplied by the cross-sectional area measured by digital angiography) was significantly lower in diabetic patients than in control subjects (14.7 +/- 19.8 vs. 75.5 +/- 13.5%, respectively; P = 0.0001). Tn addition, when there was a positive correlation between the two parameters in control subjects (r = 0.651, P < 0.01), there was no relationship in diabetic patients (r = 0.054). In conclusion, vasodilation of the coronary microcirculation in response to sympathetic stimulation evoked by the cold presser test is impaired in type 2 diabetic patients without epicardial artery lesions. This microvascular impairment during sympathetic stimulation may explain exercise-induced myocardial perfusion abnormalities observed in these patients and may impair microcirculatory coronary vasodilation during current life stress episodes such as exercise, mental stress, or cold exposition.

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