ABSTRACT
La diabetes mellitus ocupa el sexto lugar de las defunciones por causas definidas en la provincia de Misiones. Nos propusimos establecer si existen diferencias significativas para Colesterol Total (CT), Triglicéridos (TG), Colesterol-HDL(CHDL), Colesterol-LDL(CLDL), Colesterol-IDL(CIDL), Colesterol no-HDL y los índices CT/CHDL y TG/CHDL entre diabéticos tipo 2 y un grupo control y comparar los valores de CIDL entre ambos grupos según fenotipo de dislipidemia. Se estudiaron 70 diabéticos tipo 2 (DM 2) y 57 controles. CT, TG, CHDL y CLDL se determinaron por métodos enzimáticos colorimétricos y CIDL por método de Wikinski. Los resultados obtenidos en DM 2 vs. controles fueron: CT 214±49 vs. 205±34 mg/dl (p=0.488); TG 194±119 vs. 128±65 mg/dl (p<0.001); CHDL 43±11 vs. 50±13 mg/dl (p=0.001); CLDL 135±43 vs. 132±32 mg/dl (p=0.934); CIDL 13.8±8.7 vs. 7.2±3.5 mg/dl (p<0.001); CT/CHDL 5.26±1.54 vs. 4.40±1.33 (p=0.001); TG/CHDL 5.01±3.95 vs. 2.97±2.24 (p<0.001) y Col no-HDL 172±48 vs. 155±35 mg/dl (p=0.07); a igual patrón electroforético tanto normolipémico (p=0.043), fenotipo II (p=0.006) o fenotipo IV (p=0.001) el CIDL fue más elevado en el primer grupo. La cuantificación del CIDL mejora la valoración del riesgo aterogénico en DM 2 principalmente en los normolipémicos.
Diabetes Mellitus is in the sixth death cause in the province of Misiones. Majority of patients die in relation with atherosclerosis, being dislipidemias one of the mechanism that explain this increased risk. We aimed to establish if there are significant differences for total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), HDL-cholesterol (HDLC), LDL-Cholesterol (LDLC), IDL-Cholesterol (IDLC), no-HDL Cholesterol and the index TC/HDLC and TG/HDLC between diabetic patients type 2 and a control group, as well as comparing the IDLC amount between both groups according to the dislipidemia phenotype. We studied 70 diabetic patients type 2 and 57 controls, with similar distribution in age, sex and body mass index. TC, TG, HDLC and LDLC were tested by enzymatic colorimetric methods with internal and external quality controls and the IDLC by Wikinski method. The results obtained in diabetic patients vs controls were (table N°1): TC 214 ±49 vs 205± 34 mg/dl (p=0.488); TG 194±119 vs 128±65 mg/dl (p<0.001); HDLC 43±11 vs 50±13 mg/dl(p=0.001); LDLC 135±43 vs 132± 32 mg/dl (p=0.934); IDLC 13.8± 8.7 vs 7.2±3.5 mg/dl (p<0.001) (figure N°1); TC/HDLC 5.26 ±1.54 vs 4.40± 1.33 (p=0.001); TG/HDLC 5.01±3.95 vs 2.97±2.24 (p<0.001) y no-HDL cholesterol 172±48 vs 155±35 mg/dl (p=0.07); at a same electrophoretic pattern ( normolipemic (p=0.043), phenotype II (p=0.006) or phenotype IV (p=0.001)),the IDLC was higher in the first group (figure N°2). The diabetic patients show a more atherogenic lipoprotein profile than the control group. The quantification of IDLC improvement the assessment of atherogenic risk in type 2 diabetic patients, specially normolipemics.