Why the study?
Historically, FMD was determined at 60 seconds post-cuff deflation, but whether determining FMD at maximum dilatory peak improves accuracy in healthy subjects and those with T2DM remained unclear.
Does assessing flow-mediated dilation at maximum dilatory peak improve accuracy and precision compared to assessment at 60 or 90 seconds in healthy subjects and those with T2DM?
Does assessing flow-mediated dilation at maximum dilatory peak improve accuracy and precision compared to assessment at 60 or 90 seconds in healthy subjects and those with T2DM?
Assessing flow-mediated dilation at the maximum dilatory peak rather than at fixed time points improves precision and reduces required sample sizes for clinical studies.
MDP may enhance FMD precision in T2DM assessment; leaves open whether it should replace fixed-time measurements in practice or trials.
The assessment of flow-mediated dilation (FMD) is widely used to quantify endothelial function. Historically, FMD was determined at 60 seconds post-cuff deflation. We investigated whether FMD would be more accurate if determined at maximum dilatory peak (MDP) than at 60 seconds in healthy subjects and subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We studied 95 healthy and 72 subjects with T2DM and assessed FMD at MDP, 60 and 90 seconds. Twenty-four healthy and 12 subjects with T2DM underwent a repeat FMD after 28 days. In healthy subjects, FMD at MDP was higher than at 60 and 90 seconds, with mean difference MDP versus 60 seconds 1.14% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7); P < .0001 and MDP versus 90 seconds 1.9% (95% CI: 1.3-2.5) with similar results in T2DM, that is, 1.0% (95% CI: 0.1-1.9) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1.3-3.2), respectively. Intraindividual variability was lowest with MDP compared with 60 and 90 seconds, that is, 15.0 versus 23.2% and 40.0%, respectively, resulting in a more than 2-fold reduction in necessary sample size. In healthy subjects and subjects with T2DM, assessment of FMD using MDP results in a more accurate and precise assessment leading to a substantial reduction in sample size.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Herbrand et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: