A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The effects of good glycaemic control on left ventricular and coronary endothelial functions in patients with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes mellitus. | LitMetric

Objective: Diabetics are at risk for developing overt heart failure and subclinical left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Also, impaired coronary flow reserve (CFR) reflecting coronary microvascular dysfunction is common in diabetics. However, no substantial data regarding the effects of good glycaemic control on subclinical LV dysfunction and CFR are available.

Context: To investigate whether good glycaemic control had favourable effects on subclinical LV dysfunction and CFR.

Design: Prospective, open-label, follow-up study.

Patients: Diabetics (n = 202) were classified based on baseline HbA1C levels: patients with good (group 1) (<7·0%) and poor glycaemic control (≥7·0%).

Measurements: All patients underwent echocardiographic examination at baseline evaluation, and it was repeated at months 6 and 12. Based on HbA1C levels obtained at month 6, the patients with poor glycaemic control were divided into two groups: achieved (group 2) and not achieved good glycaemic control (group 3).

Results: The groups were comparable with respect to diastolic function parameters including left atrium diameter, mitral E/A, Sm , Em /Am , E/E' and Tei index, and these parameters did not significantly change at follow-up in the groups. At baseline, CFR was slightly higher in group 1 than in group 2 and group 3, but it did not reach statistically significant level. At follow-up, CFR remained unchanged in group 1 (P = 0·58) and group 3 (P = 0·86), but increased in group 2 (P = 0·02: month 6 vs baseline and P = 0·004: month 12 vs baseline).

Conclusions: Diabetics with poor and good glycaemic control were comparable with respect to echocardiographic parameters reflecting subclinical LV dysfunction, and good glycaemic control did not affect these parameters. However, good glycaemic control improved CFR.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cen.12520DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

good glycaemic
12
glycaemic control
12
effects good
8
left ventricular
8
subclinical dysfunction
8
control left
4
ventricular coronary
4
coronary endothelial
4
endothelial functions
4
functions patients
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!