In patients with type 2 diabetes, an E/e' ratio >15 was associated with a higher cumulative probability of cardiovascular events compared to E/e' ≤15 (8.6% vs 2.6%, P=0.011).
Cohort (n=406)
Does echocardiographic assessment of diastolic function (E/e') predict cardiovascular events better than global longitudinal strain (GLS) in patients with type 2 diabetes?
In middle-aged patients with type 2 diabetes, diastolic function assessed by E/e' is a stronger predictor of future cardiovascular events than systolic function assessed by GLS or LVEF.
Effect estimate: HR 1.12 (95% CI 1.06-1.18)
Absolute Event Rate: 8.6% vs 2.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
AIMS: The aim of the study was to determine whether left ventricular systolic function, in terms of global left ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), and diastolic function, expressed as the ratio between early diastolic transmitral flow and mitral annular motion velocities (E/e'), can predict cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively investigated 406 consecutive patients, aged 55-65 years, with diabetes mellitus, who participated in the CARDIPP study. Echocardiography, pulse pressure (pp), and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were analysed. Twelve cases of myocardial infarction and seven cases of stroke were identified during the follow-up period of 67 ± 17 months. Univariate Cox regression analysis showed that E/e' was a strong predictor of cardiovascular events (hazards ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.18, P 15 compared with 2.6% for patients with E/e' ≤15, P = 0.011. CONCLUSION: In middle-aged patients with type 2 diabetes, E/e' is a strong predictor of myocardial infarction and stroke, comparable with HbA1c and superior to GLS and LVEF.
Blomstrand et al. (Fri,) conducted a cohort in type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=406). E/e' ratio vs. E/e' ≤15 was evaluated on cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction and stroke) (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06-1.18, p=<0.001). In patients with type 2 diabetes, an E/e' ratio >15 was associated with a higher cumulative probability of cardiovascular events compared to E/e' ≤15 (8.6% vs 2.6%, P=0.011).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: