Why the study?
Are arterial stiffness indices (AIx, AP, SEVR) associated with microalbuminuria and renal function in patients with childhood-onset type 1 diabetes?
Are arterial stiffness indices (AIx, AP, SEVR) associated with microalbuminuria and renal function in patients with childhood-onset type 1 diabetes?
Subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR) is independently associated with microalbuminuria and renal function in type 1 diabetes, suggesting potential utility for early detection of cardiovascular and renal risk.
May inform early renal risk assessment in type 1 diabetes; extends SEVR associations to childhood-onset cases but remains hypothesis-generating.
In this report we explore the hypothesis that arterial stiffness indices, which predict cardiovascular disease, might also correlate with microalbuminuria (MA) in type 1 diabetes (T1D), and thus have potential for risk assessment. Three pulse wave analysis (PWA) indices, measured using the SphygmoCor device, were evaluated on 144 participants with childhood-onset T1D. These variables, augmentation index (AIx), augmentation pressure (AP) and subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR, an estimate of myocardial perfusion) (an estimate of myocardial perfusion), were each analysed cross-sectionally in relation to both prevalent MA (defined as albuminuria excretion rate (AER) = 20-199 microg/min) and renal function (assessed by both eGFR and serum cystatin C). AP and SEVR were each univariately associated with AER, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and cystatin C. Lower SEVR was also independently related to the presence of MA and degree of albuminuria within normo- and microalbuminuric participants. SEVR, not AP, was independently and negatively associated with both measures of renal function. SEVR is a better predictor of AER than brachial blood pressure measures in those without clinical proteinuria, indicating a potential use for PWA in the early detection of individuals at risk for cardiovascular and renal complications of T1D.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prince et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: