Cargando…
High Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in Diabetic Patients Concomitant with Metabolic Syndrome
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a case-controlled study, with data obtained from 2,551 Chinese participants between 18–79 years of age (representing a population of 1,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26745177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145293 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a case-controlled study, with data obtained from 2,551 Chinese participants between 18–79 years of age (representing a population of 1,660,500 in a district of Beijing). 74 cases of DR were found following data assessment by two 45° digital retinal images. Subjects without DR (NDR group) selected from the remaining 2,477 subjects were matched 1:1 to the DR group by HbA1c. MetS was defined by incorporating diagnostic criteria of the American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF). RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the DR group and NDR group in a number of biological or laboratory tests. However, the percentage of patients with DR increased vs. patients without DR with the number of MetS components from 1 to 5 (14.3% vs. 85.7%, 38.9% vs. 61.1%, 49.1% vs. 50.9%, 61.4% vs. 38.6% and 83.3% vs. 16.7%, respectively) (Pearson χ(2) = 9.938, P = 0.037). The trend to develop DR with MetS was significantly higher than that without MetS (NMetS) (χ(2) = 5.540, P = 0.019). MetS was an independent statistical indicator of the presence of DR after adjusting for age and sex [odds ratio (95% CI): 2.701(1.248–5.849), P = 0.012], which is still the case with an additional adjustment for WC, SBP, TC, HbA1c and duration of diabetes [odds ratio (95% CI): 2.948(1.134–7.664), P = 0.027]. CONCLUSION: DR is one of the diabetic microvascular complications. Apart from poor glycemic control, the concomitance of other metabolic factors can also influence DR. MetS, defined as a cluster of metabolic risk factors, is a strong and independent indicator of DR, even to the same extent as glycemic control. |
---|