Why the study?
Does achieving good glycaemic control improve subclinical left ventricular dysfunction and coronary flow reserve in patients with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Does achieving good glycaemic control improve subclinical left ventricular dysfunction and coronary flow reserve in patients with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Achieving good glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes improves coronary flow reserve but does not significantly alter echocardiographic parameters of subclinical LV diastolic dysfunction over 12 months.
Glycaemic control was associated with improved CFR but not diastolic function in T2DM; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective confirmation.
OBJECTIVE: Diabetics are at risk for developing overt heart failure and subclinical left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Also, impaired coronary flow reserve (CFR) reflecting coronary microvascular dysfunction is common in diabetics. However, no substantial data regarding the effects of good glycaemic control on subclinical LV dysfunction and CFR are available. CONTEXT: To investigate whether good glycaemic control had favourable effects on subclinical LV dysfunction and CFR. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, follow-up study. PATIENTS: Diabetics (n = 202) were classified based on baseline HbA1C levels: patients with good (group 1) (<7·0%) and poor glycaemic control (≥7·0%). MEASUREMENTS: All patients underwent echocardiographic examination at baseline evaluation, and it was repeated at months 6 and 12. Based on HbA1C levels obtained at month 6, the patients with poor glycaemic control were divided into two groups: achieved (group 2) and not achieved good glycaemic control (group 3). RESULTS: The groups were comparable with respect to diastolic function parameters including left atrium diameter, mitral E/A, Sm , Em /Am , E/E' and Tei index, and these parameters did not significantly change at follow-up in the groups. At baseline, CFR was slightly higher in group 1 than in group 2 and group 3, but it did not reach statistically significant level. At follow-up, CFR remained unchanged in group 1 (P = 0·58) and group 3 (P = 0·86), but increased in group 2 (P = 0·02: month 6 vs baseline and P = 0·004: month 12 vs baseline). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetics with poor and good glycaemic control were comparable with respect to echocardiographic parameters reflecting subclinical LV dysfunction, and good glycaemic control did not affect these parameters. However, good glycaemic control improved CFR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Erdoğan et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: