Association of serum N(ε)-Carboxy methyl lysine with severity of diabetic retinopathy

To correlate serum levels of N-epsilon-carboxy methyl lysine (N(ε)-CML) with severity of retinopathy, in vivo macular edema and disruption of external limiting membrane (ELM) and photoreceptor ellipsoid zone in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Consecutive cases of type 2 DM [diabetes mellitus with no...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of diabetes and its complications 2016-04, Vol.30 (3), p.511
Hauptverfasser: Mishra, Nibha, Saxena, Sandeep, Shukla, Rajendra K, Singh, Vinita, Meyer, Carsten H, Kruzliak, Peter, Khanna, Vinay K
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To correlate serum levels of N-epsilon-carboxy methyl lysine (N(ε)-CML) with severity of retinopathy, in vivo macular edema and disruption of external limiting membrane (ELM) and photoreceptor ellipsoid zone in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Consecutive cases of type 2 DM [diabetes mellitus with no retinopathy (No DR) (n=20); non- proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) with diabetic macular edema (n=20); proliferative diabetic retinopathy with diabetic macular edema (PDR) (n=20)] and healthy controls (n=20) between the ages of 40 and 65 years were included (power of study=93.8%). In vivo histology of retinal layers was assessed using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Every study subject underwent macular thickness analysis using the macular cube 512×128 feature. Disruption of ELM and photoreceptor ellipsoid zone was graded: grade 0, no disruption of ELM and ellipsoid zone; grade 1, ELM disrupted and ellipsoid zone intact; grade 2, both ELM and ellipsoid zone disrupted. Data were statistically analyzed. The mean levels of N(ε)-CML were 31.34±21.23 ng/ml, 73.88±35.01 ng/ml, 91.21±66.65 ng/ml, and 132.08±84.07 ng/ml in control, No DR, NPDR and PDR respectively. N(ε)-CML level was significantly different between the study groups (control, No DR, NPDR and PDR) (p
ISSN:1056-8727
1873-460X
DOI:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.12.009