Key result
Type 1 diabetes linked to ~58% higher cardiac autonomic neuropathy prevalence versus type 2 diabetes.
Why the study?
Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) is a strong risk marker for mortality in diabetes, but its prevalence and associations with complications in type 1 and type 2 diabetes require analysis.
Cross-Sectional (n=195)
Cardiac autonomic neuropathy is highly prevalent in diabetic patients, particularly in T1DM, and is strongly associated with other micro- and macrovascular complications.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports heightened CAN vigilance in type 1 diabetes; cross-sectional data leave causal links to complications open.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) in diabetes is among the strongest risk markers for future global and cardiovascular mortality. The aim of this study was to analyse CAN prevalence and to compare the associations between CAN, the glycaemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy and macroangiopathy in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: One hundred ninety-five diabetic patients were included in this study. All patients were evaluated for detection of CAN (with standardised cardiovascular reflex tests), diabetes-related microvascular complications (polyneuropathy, retinopathy), common carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) and ankle-brachial index (ABI). RESULTS: The prevalence of CAN was 39.1% in T2DM and 61.8% in T1DM patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that in T2DM, the odds [OR (95% confidence intervals)] of CAN increased with diabetes duration [1.67(1.42-1.92)], HbA1c [1.74(1.34-2.27)], cholesterol [1.01(1.00-1.01)], triglycerides [1.01(0.99-1.00)], smoking [2.35(1.23-4.49)], systolic blood pressure [1.01(1.00-1.03)], BMI [1.16(1.08-1.24)], glomerular filtration rate [0.91(0.88-0.93)], peripheral neuropathy [25.94(11.04-44.25)], retinopathy [13.13(3.03-84.73)] and IMT [10.12 (7.21-15.32)]. In T1DM, the odds of CAN increased with diabetes duration [1.62(1.13-2.31)], HbA1c [4.49(1.27-15.9)], age of patients [1.14(1.03-1.27)], glomerular filtration rate [0.94(0.89-0.99)], peripheral neuropathy [31.6(4.5-45.8)] and IMT [5.5(2.3-8.3)]. CONCLUSION: This study indicated that CAN is a more frequent complication in T1DM. Apart from glycaemic control, the existence of CAN is associated with potentially modifiable cardiovascular risk only in T2DM patients. The presence of other micro- and macrovascular complications increases the probability of having CAN in both types of DM (but more pronounced in T2DM).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moțățăianu et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=195). Type 1 diabetes mellitus vs. Type 2 diabetes mellitus was evaluated on Prevalence of cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN). The prevalence of cardiac autonomic neuropathy was 61.8% in type 1 diabetes compared to 39.1% in type 2 diabetes, and was strongly associated with other micro- and macrovascular complications.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: