Key result
Flow-mediated dilatation was significantly impaired in Type I diabetes versus controls in one study (median 4.35% vs 6.50%, P<0.001) but not in a second study, indicating poor reproducibility.
Why the study?
Is flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) a reproducible indicator of microvascular function in patients with Type I diabetes compared to controls?
Case-Control (n=143)
Is flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) a reproducible indicator of microvascular function in patients with Type I diabetes compared to controls?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.35% vs 6.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Conventional flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) is poorly reproducible for assessing endothelial function in Type I diabetes when operators and ultrasound machines vary, though blood velocity waveform analysis may offer a more consistent alternative.
FMD shows poor reproducibility in Type 1 diabetes; leaves open its validity as an endothelial marker and warrants alternative assessments.
BACKGROUND: Flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery is commonly measured as a surrogate marker of endothelial function. Its measurement is, however, technically demanding and reports regarding its reproducibility have not always been favourable. AIM: Two Type I diabetes and control group comparator studies were conducted to assess the reproducibility of FMD and to analyse blood flow data normally discarded during FMD measurement. DESIGN: The studies were sequential and differed only with regard to operator and ultrasound machine. Seventy-two subjects with diabetes and 71 controls were studied in total. METHODS: Subjects had FMD measured conventionally. Blood velocity waveforms were averaged over 10 pulses post forearm ischaemia and their component frequencies analysed using the wavelet transform, a mathematical tool for waveform analysis. The component frequencies were grouped into 11 bands to facilitate analysis. RESULTS: Subjects were well-matched between studies. In Study 1, FMD was significantly impaired in subjects with Type I diabetes vs. controls (median 4.35%, interquartile range 3.10-4.80 vs. 6.50, 4.79-9.42, P < 0.001). No differences were detected between groups in Study 2, however. However, analysis of blood velocity waveforms yielded significant differences between groups in two frequency bands in each study. CONCLUSION: This report highlights concerns over the reproducibility of FMD measures. Further work is required to fully elucidate the role of analysing velocity waveforms after forearm ischaemia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hamilton et al. (2011) conducted a case-control in Type I diabetes mellitus (n=143). Type I diabetes mellitus vs. Controls was evaluated on Flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) (p=<0.001). Flow-mediated dilatation was significantly impaired in Type I diabetes versus controls in one study (median 4.35% vs 6.50%, P<0.001) but not in a second study, indicating poor reproducibility.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: