Observational analysis compares cardiovascular impact in early-onset type 1 and type 2 diabetes, highlighting associated risk factors.
Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among individuals with diabetes, with early-onset cases posing unique risks. Objective: To evaluate and compare the cardiovascular impact of early-onset type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in paediatric versus adult patients and to identify associated clinical, biochemical, and sociodemographic risk factors in a low-resource Pakistani setting. Methods: This was an observational, comparative, cross-sectional study conducted at the Department of Paediatrics, Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, from March 2024 to March 2025. A total of 260 participants were enrolled using non-probability consecutive sampling, comprising 130 diabetic patients (aged 10–40 years) with early-onset diabetes mellitus (diagnosed ≤25 years) and 130 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Data were collected through structured clinical examination, laboratory investigations (including HbA1c, lipid profile, serum creatinine, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio), electrocardiography, and echocardiography. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 26.0. Results: Diabetic patients demonstrated significantly higher prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (36.9% vs. 10.8%; adjusted OR: 5.01; 95% CI: 2.51–9.99; p = 0.0001), CIMT ≥0.9 mm (44.6% vs. 16.2%; OR: 4.49; 95% CI: 2.44–8.26; p = 0.0001), and diastolic dysfunction (24.6% vs. 6.9%; OR: 4.25; 95% CI: 1.83–9.89; p = 0.0003). Significant associations were found between cardiovascular complications and poor glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥7%), LDL ≥100 mg/dL, triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL, low socioeconomic status, and sedentary lifestyle. Conclusion: Early-onset diabetes mellitus is strongly associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in young Pakistani patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shafiq et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: