4.7 Article

Postchallenge plasma glucose and glycemic spikes are more strongly associated with atherosclerosis than fasting glucose or HbA1c level

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 23, 期 12, 页码 1830-1834

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.23.12.1830

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To observe the relationship of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postchallenge plasma glucose CPG) (30, 60, 90, and 120 min during an oral glucose tolerance test [OGTT], as well as maximal PG during an OGTT, postchallenge glucose spikes [PGS], and glucose under the OGTT curve), and HbA(1c) to intima-media thickness (IMT) as a marker of atherosclerosis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - OGTT, ultrasound measurement of carotid IMT, and various atherosclerosis risk factors, such as family history of diabetes, obesity, and/or hyperlipoproteinemia. but without known diabetes, were analyzed in 582 individuals aged 40-70 years and at risk for type 2 diabetes. RESULTS - In univariate analysis, all examined glycemic parameters were significantly correlated to IMT The 2-h postchallenge plasma glucose showed the strongest odds ratio (OR) of 1.88 (1.34-2.63) in relation to abnormal IMT. AII PG variables, except for 30-min glucose in OGTT, showed a significant OR, whereas the OR for HbA(1c) and FPG was not significant. In logistic regression analysis, 2-h PG was identified as the strongest determinant of IMT from all glycemic parameters. The 2-h PG and PGS, but not FPG, were associated with a significant rise of IMT in tertiles of HbA(1c). Glycemic parameters were strongly related to each other and to many atherosclerosis risk factors. In multivariate analysis including a variety of atherosclerosis risk factors, 2-h PG was a significant independent determinant of IMT. CONCLUSIONS - PG and PGS are more strongly associated with carotid IMT than FPG and HbA(1c) level and modify substantially the risk for atherosclerosis, estimated by HbA(1c) alone, in a cohort at risk for diabetes and in the early diabetes stage.

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