Evaluation of Vascular Endothelial Function in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Figure 1. (a–g). A comparison of the distribution of selected parameters vs. DM1 duration. Boxplot of values for each subgroup. ((a)—the mean sICAM-1 values: 110.48 ± 4.53 vs. 168.47 ± 3.05 vs. 243.97 ± 55.18 vs. 372.85 ± 85.31 ng/mL; (b)—the mean sVCAM-1 values: 337.33 ± 11.73 vs. 412.56 ± 10.29 vs. 538.29 ± 59.77 vs. 687.26 ± 107.84 ng/mL; (c)—the mean sE-SELECTIN values: 5.43 ± 0.21 vs. 44.17 ± 2.27 vs. 54.01 ± 6.5 vs. 72.84 ± 11.56 ng/mL; (d)—the mean ADMA values: 71.91 ± 2.31 vs. 109.32 ± 2.38 vs. 261.05 ± 124.20 vs. 569.99 ± 193.44 ng/mL; (e)—the mean PAI-1 values: 6.51 ± 0.21 vs. 13.07 ± 0.11 vs. 16.29 ± 1.04 vs. 18.21 ± 1.84 ng/mL; (f)—the mean RAGE values: 84.94 ± 2.27 vs. 116.78 ± 1.53 vs. 301.95 ± 148.48 vs. 679.45 ± 230.59 pg/mL; and (g)—the mean CRP values: 0.8 ± 1.2 vs. 2.97 ± 4.53 vs. 2.78 ± 4.77 vs. 4.82 ± 7.92 mg/L). Legends: Control—control group; 1—the patients with newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus (DM1 duration < 1 year), n = 19; 2—the patients with DM1 duration of 1–5 years, n = 24; 3—the patients with DM1 duration of at least 5 years, n = 23.

Figure 2. A comparison of the ADMA values depending on the patient’s age (196.99 ± 135.66 vs. 331.71 ± 246.17 vs. 397.40 ± 238.84 ng/mL). Boxplot of values for each subgroup. Legends: patients aged 5–9-years-old, n = 14; patients aged 10–14-years-old, n = 30; patients aged 15–18-years-old, n = 22.

Figure 3. (a–d). A comparison of selected parameters depending on BMI ((a)—the mean sICAM-1 values: 209.94 ± 70.31 vs. 279.44 ± 108.54 vs. 269.65 ± 96.13 vs. 261.02 ± 103.28 ng/mL; (b)—the mean sVCAM-1 values: 481.18 ± 99.39 vs. 568.94 ± 141.01 vs. 560.93 ± 117.07 vs. 550.41 ± 129.89 ng/mL; (c)—the mean RAGE values: 231.46 ± 198.32 vs. 414.20 ± 298.22 vs. 380.62 ± 269.90 vs. 357.74 ± 291.02 pg/mL; (d)—the mean albuminuria values: 17.51 ± 21.68 vs. 15.81 ± 14.41 vs. 23.67 ± 16.08 vs. 10.23 ± 5.41 mg/24 h). Boxplot of values for each subgroup. Legends: NI—the patients underweight patients, n = 11; N—the patients with normal body weight, n = 39; NA—the overweight patients, n = 11; O—the patients with obesity, n = 4.

Figure 4. (a–f). A comparison of endothelial damage markers depending on the degree of metabolic (non)balancing of type 1 diabetes ((a)—the mean sICAM-1 values: 298.69 ± 95.06 vs. 284.13 ± 101.18 vs. 247.87 ± 114.65 vs. 207.70 ± 86.90 ng/mL; (b)—the mean sVCAM-1 values: 598.80 ± 111.06 vs. 583.04 ± 127.85 vs. 523.53 ± 152.63 vs. 461.07 ± 108.22 ng/mL; (c)—the mean sE-SELECTIN values: 62.13 ± 13.35 vs. 59.81 ± 13.58 vs. 55.57 ± 15.92 vs. 49.24 ± 12.07 ng/mL; (d)—the mean ADMA values: 397.44 ± 223.47 vs. 356.19 ± 228.50 vs. 284.21 ± 254.30 vs. 191.14 ± 188.38 ng/mL; (e)—the mean PAI-1 values: 17.23 ± 1.70 vs. 16.56 ± 2.12 vs. 15.08 ± 2.80 vs. 4.22 ± 2.07 ng/mL; (f)—the mean RAGE values: 462.95 ± 265.67 vs. 424.01 ± 281.86 vs. 333.59 ± 312.73 vs. 216.76 ± 231.39 pg/mL). Boxplot of values for each subgroup. Legends: 1—the patients with HbA1c: 6.5–8.9%, n = 20; 2—the patients with HbA1c: 9–11.4%, n = 17; 3—the patients with HbA1c: 11.5–13.9 %, n = 16; 4—the patients with HbA1c: ≥14%, n = 8.

Figure 5. The indices of correlation among selected diagnostic features. Correlogram shows scatterplots for each pair variables in the bottom left part, and Spearman’s correlation coefficient is shown in the upper right part. Distribution of variables is shown diagonally. Legend: *—p-value < 0.05; **—p-value < 0.01, ***—p-value < 0.001.