Why the study?
Does pulse pressure predict incident cardiovascular disease and diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes?
Does pulse pressure predict incident cardiovascular disease and diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes?
Pulse pressure is an independent predictor of incident cardiovascular events, but not diabetic nephropathy progression, in patients with type 1 diabetes.
Pulse pressure may aid CVD risk stratification in type 1 diabetes; leaves open its role in renal progression and need for prospective validation.
OBJECTIVE: Pulse pressure (PP), an estimate of arterial stiffness, has been shown to be associated with incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, diabetic kidney disease, a strong predictor of CVD, was not previously taken into account. Furthermore, the role of PP as a predictor of diabetic nephropathy is not known. Therefore, we prospectively investigated the associations between PP and these diabetes complications in patients with T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 4,509 patients from the FinnDiane Study participated. Follow-up data on incident CVD events and renal status (median 5.3 years) were available in 69 and 76% of the patients, respectively. Altogether, 269 patients (8.6%) had an incident CVD event and 370 patients (10.8%) progressed to a higher level of albuminuria or to end-stage renal disease. RESULTS: PP was higher at baseline in patients who experienced a CVD event (66 ± 18 vs. 52 ± 14 mmHg; P < 0.001) or progressed in their renal status (58 ± 18 vs. 54 ± 15 mmHg; P < 0.01) during follow-up. In a Cox regression model, PP was independently associated with a first ever CVD event (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg 1.22 [95% CI 1.10-1.34]) but not progression of renal disease (1.00 [0.89-1.12]) after adjustments for traditional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: PP, a marker of arterial stiffness, is a risk factor for cardiovascular complications but not for diabetic nephropathy in patients with T1D.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gordin et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: