Why the study?
Children with type 1 diabetes have an increased risk of advanced atherosclerosis and CVD, but the impact of metabolic control assessed via CGM metrics warrants summarization.
Does optimal glycaemic control assessed by CGM metrics reduce the development of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease in young patients with type 1 diabetes?
Does optimal glycaemic control assessed by CGM metrics reduce the development of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease in young patients with type 1 diabetes?
Optimal glycemic control is crucial for preventing early atherosclerotic vascular changes in young patients with type 1 diabetes, though more pediatric studies using CGM metrics are needed.
Early vascular assessment may refine CVD risk stratification in pediatric DM1; leaves open whether CGM metrics add prognostic value beyond HbA1c.
Compared with healthy children, peers with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1) have an increased risk of developing advanced atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Glycaemic control is the most important modifiable risk factor for CVD in DM1. Currently, monitoring of glycaemic control relies on glycosylated haemoglobin levels (HbA1c), self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. The flow-mediated dilatation (FMD), pulse wave velocity (PWV), ankle-brachial index (ABI), and carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) may be used to assess the risk of CVD, by estimating the process of atherosclerosis in peripheral vessels. Aim of the study: To summarize the current literature on the correlation of metabolic control in young people with DM1, assessed by key metrics from CGM reports, and the development of atherosclerosis and the incidence of CVD. Conclusions: Chronic hyperglycaemia is an independent risk factor for vascular changes. The effect of glycaemic control - assessed on the basis of parameters obtained from CGM reports - on the risk of CVD in DM1 has been analysed in few studies, especially in the paediatric population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kolasa et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: