Journal of diabetes investigation · 2024
Cardiac electrophysiology, structure and diastolic function in patients with diabetic foot versus those without diabetic foot.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bai Mingxin, Chen Dawei, Liu Yan, Ran Xingwu, Wang Chun, Chen Lihong, Yan Donge, He Sen, Wu Murong, Luo Bo, Wang Wen, Lei Zhiyi, Gao Yun
Аннотация
AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the differences in cardiac autonomic function, cardiac structure and diastolic function between individuals with diabetic foot (DF) and those with diabetes but without DF.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 413 individuals with DF and 437 without DF who underwent a 24-h electrocardiogram Holter and a Doppler echocardiogram were included. The heart rate variability parameters to evaluate cardiac autonomic function, and the indices for the assessment of cardiac structure and left ventricular (LV) diastolic function, including left atrium, LV posterior wall thickness, interventricular septum and E/e' ratio, were measured or calculated. Propensity score matching was used for the sensitivity analysis to minimize potential imbalance.
RESULTS: In both the crude and propensity score matching analyses, significant differences were observed in heart rate variability between individuals with and without DF, as evidenced by lower standard deviation of the normal sinus interval, lower low-frequency power/high-frequency power ratio, lower standard deviation of the 5-min average RR intervals, lower low-frequency power, lower percentage of normal adjacent RR interval difference >50 ms, lower root mean square of successive RR interval differences and lower high-frequency power (all P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, DF showed an independent negative correlation with the aforementioned indices of heart rate variability (all P < 0.05). Individuals with DF showed higher left atrium, LV posterior wall thickness, interventricular septum and a higher E/e' ratio than those without DF in the crude analysis (all P < 0.05), whereas these indices were no longer associated with DF in the multivariate analysis and the propensity score matching analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac autonomic modulation was more severely impaired in individuals with DF than in their counterparts without DF. There has been insufficient evidence to demonstrate the independent association of DF and LV diastolic dysfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 413 individuals with DF and 437 without DF who underwent a 24-h electrocardiogram Holter and a Doppler echocardiogram were included. The heart rate variability parameters to evaluate cardiac autonomic function, and the indices for the assessment of cardiac structure and left ventricular (LV) diastolic function, including left atrium, LV posterior wall thickness, interventricular septum and E/e' ratio, were measured or calculated. Propensity score matching was used for the sensitivity analysis to minimize potential imbalance.
RESULTS: In both the crude and propensity score matching analyses, significant differences were observed in heart rate variability between individuals with and without DF, as evidenced by lower standard deviation of the normal sinus interval, lower low-frequency power/high-frequency power ratio, lower standard deviation of the 5-min average RR intervals, lower low-frequency power, lower percentage of normal adjacent RR interval difference >50 ms, lower root mean square of successive RR interval differences and lower high-frequency power (all P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, DF showed an independent negative correlation with the aforementioned indices of heart rate variability (all P < 0.05). Individuals with DF showed higher left atrium, LV posterior wall thickness, interventricular septum and a higher E/e' ratio than those without DF in the crude analysis (all P < 0.05), whereas these indices were no longer associated with DF in the multivariate analysis and the propensity score matching analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac autonomic modulation was more severely impaired in individuals with DF than in their counterparts without DF. There has been insufficient evidence to demonstrate the independent association of DF and LV diastolic dysfunction.