Relationship between carotid intima-media thickness and carotid artery stiffness assessed by ultrafast ultrasound imaging in patients with type 2 diabetes

To evaluate the relationship between carotid stiffness and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Carotid properties were evaluated in 317 consecutive subjects (98 volunteers for controls, 105 patients with normal CIMT for T2DM group 1, and 114 patients with t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of radiology 2019-02, Vol.111, p.34-40
Hauptverfasser: Pan, Fu-shun, Xu, Ming, Yu, Liang, Luo, Jia, Li, Man-ying, Liang, Jin-yu, Zheng, Yan-ling, Xie, Xiao-yan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To evaluate the relationship between carotid stiffness and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Carotid properties were evaluated in 317 consecutive subjects (98 volunteers for controls, 105 patients with normal CIMT for T2DM group 1, and 114 patients with thickened CIMT for T2DM group 2). The CIMT and carotid pulse wave velocity at the beginning (PWV-BS) and at the end of systole (PWV-ES) were measured. Apart from PWV-BS in T2DM group 1, CIMT and PWV-ES were significant higher in patients groups than those of in controls. In multiple regression analysis, diabetes was independently associated with PWV-ES and not with PWV-BS. Moreover, when adjusting for baseline covariates, only PWV-ES (odds ratio = 4.27, P < 0.001) distinguished carotid in T2DM group 1 from that of controls. Concerning the relationship between log(CIMT) and PWV-ES, when adjusting for baseline covariates, the association were still significant in controls and T2DM group 1, whereas it was no longer present in T2DM group 2 (P =  0.091). Additionally, the slope (β) after adjustment for the PWV-ES to log(CIMT) was significantly steeper in T2DM group 1 than that of in controls (β= 8.35 vs. 3.31, P 
ISSN:0720-048X
1872-7727
DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.12.016