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
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.12520 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!