Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews · 2018
Continuous glucose monitoring defined glucose variability is associated with cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in type 1 diabetes.
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.
Jun Ji Eun, Lee Seung-Eun, Lee You-Bin, Ahn Ji Yeon, Kim Gyuri, Hur Kyu Yeon, Lee Moon-Kyu, Jin Sang-Man, Kim Jae Hyeon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to establish the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-defined glycaemic variability (GV) and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) in type 1 diabetes independent of mean glucose and to examine the relative contribution of each internationally standardized CGM parameter to this association.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 80 adults with type 1 diabetes who underwent 3-day CGM and autonomic function tests within 3 months. The degree of association between internationally standardized CGM parameters and CAN, defined as at least two abnormal parasympathetic tests or the presence of orthostatic hypotension, were analysed by logistic regression, receiver operating characteristics (ROC), and dominance analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 36 subjects (45.0%) were diagnosed with CAN. When adjusted with mean glucose and clinical risk factors of CAN, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glycaemic excursion, percent time in level 1 (glucose 54-69 mg/dL) and level 2 (glucose < 54 mg/dL) hypoglycaemia, area under the curve in level 2 hypoglycaemia, low blood glucose index, high blood glucose index, and percent time in glucose 70 to 180 mg/dL were independently associated with CAN. Multivariable ROC analysis and dominance analysis revealed the highest relative contribution of percent time in level 2 hypoglycaemia to the independent associations between CGM parameters and presence of CAN.
CONCLUSIONS: CGM-defined GV was associated with CAN independent of mean glucose in adults with type 1 diabetes. Among internationally standardized CGM parameters, those describing the degree of level 2 hypoglycaemia were the most significant contributors to this association.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 80 adults with type 1 diabetes who underwent 3-day CGM and autonomic function tests within 3 months. The degree of association between internationally standardized CGM parameters and CAN, defined as at least two abnormal parasympathetic tests or the presence of orthostatic hypotension, were analysed by logistic regression, receiver operating characteristics (ROC), and dominance analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 36 subjects (45.0%) were diagnosed with CAN. When adjusted with mean glucose and clinical risk factors of CAN, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glycaemic excursion, percent time in level 1 (glucose 54-69 mg/dL) and level 2 (glucose < 54 mg/dL) hypoglycaemia, area under the curve in level 2 hypoglycaemia, low blood glucose index, high blood glucose index, and percent time in glucose 70 to 180 mg/dL were independently associated with CAN. Multivariable ROC analysis and dominance analysis revealed the highest relative contribution of percent time in level 2 hypoglycaemia to the independent associations between CGM parameters and presence of CAN.
CONCLUSIONS: CGM-defined GV was associated with CAN independent of mean glucose in adults with type 1 diabetes. Among internationally standardized CGM parameters, those describing the degree of level 2 hypoglycaemia were the most significant contributors to this association.