Cargando…

Impaired Fasting Glucose in Nondiabetic Range: Is It a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Clustering?

Background. Impaired fasting glucose (IFG) through the nondiabetic range (100–125 mg/dL) is not considered in the cardiovascular (CV) risk profile. Aim. To compare the clustering of CV risk factors (RFs) in nondiabetic subjects with normal fasting glucose (NFG) and IFG. Material and Methods. Cross-s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Valentino, Giovanna, Kramer, Verónica, Orellana, Lorena, Bustamante, María José, Casasbellas, Cinthia, Adasme, Marcela, Salazar, Alejandra, Navarrete, Carlos, Acevedo, Mónica
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4609510/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26504260
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/804739
_version_ 1782395827956744192
author Valentino, Giovanna
Kramer, Verónica
Orellana, Lorena
Bustamante, María José
Casasbellas, Cinthia
Adasme, Marcela
Salazar, Alejandra
Navarrete, Carlos
Acevedo, Mónica
author_facet Valentino, Giovanna
Kramer, Verónica
Orellana, Lorena
Bustamante, María José
Casasbellas, Cinthia
Adasme, Marcela
Salazar, Alejandra
Navarrete, Carlos
Acevedo, Mónica
author_sort Valentino, Giovanna
collection PubMed
description Background. Impaired fasting glucose (IFG) through the nondiabetic range (100–125 mg/dL) is not considered in the cardiovascular (CV) risk profile. Aim. To compare the clustering of CV risk factors (RFs) in nondiabetic subjects with normal fasting glucose (NFG) and IFG. Material and Methods. Cross-sectional study in 3739 nondiabetic subjects. Demographics, medical history, and CV risk factors were collected and lipid profile, fasting glucose levels (FBG), C-reactive protein (hsCRP), blood pressure (BP), anthropometric measurements, and aerobic capacity were determined. Results. 559 (15%) subjects had IFG: they had a higher mean age, BMI, waist circumference, non-HDL cholesterol, BP, and hsCRP (p < 0.0001) and lower HDL (p < 0.001) and aerobic capacity (p < 0.001). They also had a higher prevalence of hypertension (34% versus 25%; p < 0.001), dyslipidemia (79% versus 74%; p < 0.001), and obesity (29% versus 16%; p < 0.001) and a higher Framingham risk score (8% versus 6%; p < 0.001). The probability of presenting 3 or more CV RFs adjusted by age and gender was significantly higher in the top quintile of fasting glucose (≥98 mg/dL; OR = 2.02; 1.62–2.51). Conclusions. IFG in the nondiabetic range is associated with increased cardiovascular RF clustering.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4609510
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46095102015-10-26 Impaired Fasting Glucose in Nondiabetic Range: Is It a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Clustering? Valentino, Giovanna Kramer, Verónica Orellana, Lorena Bustamante, María José Casasbellas, Cinthia Adasme, Marcela Salazar, Alejandra Navarrete, Carlos Acevedo, Mónica Dis Markers Research Article Background. Impaired fasting glucose (IFG) through the nondiabetic range (100–125 mg/dL) is not considered in the cardiovascular (CV) risk profile. Aim. To compare the clustering of CV risk factors (RFs) in nondiabetic subjects with normal fasting glucose (NFG) and IFG. Material and Methods. Cross-sectional study in 3739 nondiabetic subjects. Demographics, medical history, and CV risk factors were collected and lipid profile, fasting glucose levels (FBG), C-reactive protein (hsCRP), blood pressure (BP), anthropometric measurements, and aerobic capacity were determined. Results. 559 (15%) subjects had IFG: they had a higher mean age, BMI, waist circumference, non-HDL cholesterol, BP, and hsCRP (p < 0.0001) and lower HDL (p < 0.001) and aerobic capacity (p < 0.001). They also had a higher prevalence of hypertension (34% versus 25%; p < 0.001), dyslipidemia (79% versus 74%; p < 0.001), and obesity (29% versus 16%; p < 0.001) and a higher Framingham risk score (8% versus 6%; p < 0.001). The probability of presenting 3 or more CV RFs adjusted by age and gender was significantly higher in the top quintile of fasting glucose (≥98 mg/dL; OR = 2.02; 1.62–2.51). Conclusions. IFG in the nondiabetic range is associated with increased cardiovascular RF clustering. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4609510/ /pubmed/26504260 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/804739 Text en Copyright © 2015 Giovanna Valentino et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Valentino, Giovanna
Kramer, Verónica
Orellana, Lorena
Bustamante, María José
Casasbellas, Cinthia
Adasme, Marcela
Salazar, Alejandra
Navarrete, Carlos
Acevedo, Mónica
Impaired Fasting Glucose in Nondiabetic Range: Is It a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Clustering?
title Impaired Fasting Glucose in Nondiabetic Range: Is It a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Clustering?
title_full Impaired Fasting Glucose in Nondiabetic Range: Is It a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Clustering?
title_fullStr Impaired Fasting Glucose in Nondiabetic Range: Is It a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Clustering?
title_full_unstemmed Impaired Fasting Glucose in Nondiabetic Range: Is It a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Clustering?
title_short Impaired Fasting Glucose in Nondiabetic Range: Is It a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Clustering?
title_sort impaired fasting glucose in nondiabetic range: is it a marker of cardiovascular risk factor clustering?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4609510/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26504260
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/804739
work_keys_str_mv AT valentinogiovanna impairedfastingglucoseinnondiabeticrangeisitamarkerofcardiovascularriskfactorclustering
AT kramerveronica impairedfastingglucoseinnondiabeticrangeisitamarkerofcardiovascularriskfactorclustering
AT orellanalorena impairedfastingglucoseinnondiabeticrangeisitamarkerofcardiovascularriskfactorclustering
AT bustamantemariajose impairedfastingglucoseinnondiabeticrangeisitamarkerofcardiovascularriskfactorclustering
AT casasbellascinthia impairedfastingglucoseinnondiabeticrangeisitamarkerofcardiovascularriskfactorclustering
AT adasmemarcela impairedfastingglucoseinnondiabeticrangeisitamarkerofcardiovascularriskfactorclustering
AT salazaralejandra impairedfastingglucoseinnondiabeticrangeisitamarkerofcardiovascularriskfactorclustering
AT navarretecarlos impairedfastingglucoseinnondiabeticrangeisitamarkerofcardiovascularriskfactorclustering
AT acevedomonica impairedfastingglucoseinnondiabeticrangeisitamarkerofcardiovascularriskfactorclustering