Blood pressure variability and its association with echocardiographic parameters in hypertensive diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) variability is associated with target organ damage in hypertension and diabetes. The 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (24 h-ABPM) has been proposed as an evaluation for BP variability using several indexes [standard deviation (SD) of mean BP, coefficient of variation (CV), BP variation over time (time-rate index)]. METHODS: We evaluated the association between BP variability measured by 24 h-ABPM indexes and echocardiographic variables in a cross-sectional study in 305 diabetic-hypertensive patients. RESULTS: Two groups were defined by the median (0.55 mmHg/min) of time-rate systolic BP (SBP) index and classified as low or high variability. Age was 57.3 ± 6.2 years, 196 (64.3%) were female. Diabetes duration was 10.0 (5.0-16.2) years, HbA1c was 8.2 ± 1.9%. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between low (n = 148) and high (n = 157) variability groups. Office SBP and systolic 24 h-ABPM were higher in the high variability group (139.9 mmHg vs 146.0 mmHg, P = 0.006; 128.3 mmHg vs 132.9 mmHg, P = 0.019, respectively). Time-rate index, SD and CV of SBP, were higher in high variability group (P < 0.001; P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). Time-rate index was not independently associated with the echocardiography's variables in multiple linear model when adjusting for age, 24 h-ABPM, diabetes duration and HbA1c. The multiple linear regression model revealed that the significant and independent determinants for septum thickness, relative wall thickness and posterior wall thickness (parameters of left ventricular hypertrophy) were: age (p = 0.025; p = 0.010; p = 0.032, respectively) and 24 h-SBP (p < 0.001 in the three parameters). CONCLUSION: BP variability estimated by 24 h-ABPM is not independently associated with echocardiographic parameters in diabetic-hypertensive patients.

Association between erectile dysfunction and echocardiographic variables of ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic function in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted among individuals with diabetes and hypertension in order to assess the prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and the association between ED and cardiovascular risk variables such as echocardiographic changes. METHODS: We evaluated 114 men with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. ED was assessed by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score. Clinical and laboratory variables were evaluated, including C-reactive protein (CRP), ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), ankle brachial index (ABI) and transthoracic echocardiography. Comparisons between patients with ED (IIEF-5 < 22) and without ED (IIEF-5 ≥ 22) were performed. RESULTS: Patients were 56.8 ± 5.7 years-old, systolic and diastolic blood pressure were 150.7 ± 19.5 mmHg and 85.4 ± 11.4 mmHg, respectively, and HbA1c was 8.0 ± 1.7%. The majority (74.6%) of patients had ED. Levels of CRP, ABPM values and ABI were similar between men with and without ED. Echocardiography variables related to cardiac chamber diameters, left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic function were similar between groups, except there was a slight lower left ventricular ejection fraction in men with ED (64.9 ± 7.3 vs 68.1 ± 3.9%, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In high cardiovascular risk hypertensive individuals with type 2 diabetes, ED is highly prevalent as expected, but its presence is associated with neither echocardiographic variables, nor other cardiovascular risk factors.

Controle glicêmico em pacientes com diabetes mellitus e doença cardiovascular acompanhados em ambulatório de referência / Glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease monitored at a reference outpatient clinic

INTRODUÇÃO: O controle da hiperglicemia característica do diabetes mellitus é parte importante do seu tratamento, e se associa, em longo prazo, à redução de complicações crônicas da doença. No entanto, atingir bom controle glicêmico não é tarefa fácil; múltiplas abordagens têm sido buscadas com este intuito. Nosso objetivo foi descrever o controle glicêmico de uma amostra de pacientes atendidos em nível terciário e analisar possíveis preditores de alcance de bom controle glicêmico no seguimento. MÉTODOS: Estudo observacional, coletados dados de pacientes com diabetes tipo 2 em acompanhamento ambulatorial, através de dados do prontuário eletrônico. Coletadas variáveis demográficas, clínicas e laboratoriais (glicemia, hemoglobina glicada (HbA1c), lipídios, creatinina e microalbuminúria). RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos 57 pacientes; 61,4% alcançaram HbA1c ≤8% (grupo Diabetes Mellitus controlado, DMC) e 22 (38,6%) não atingiram este valor (grupo Diabetes Mellitus não controlado, DMNC) em 1 ano. A maioria dos pacientes do grupo DMNC eram homens (p = 0,030); idade, associação com outras comorbidades, escolaridade, tempo de diabetes não foram diferentes entre os grupos. Número de consultas marcadas foi semelhante entre os grupos, mas o de consultas realizadas foi maior no grupo DMNC. O controle glicêmico inicial era pior no grupo DMNC (HbA1c 9,2 ±1,4 vs.11,0 ±1,5%, p < 0,001). Alta ambulatorial foi mais frequente no grupo DMC (p = 0,01). CONCLUSÃO: A intensificação do cuidado ao diabetes por equipe especializada em nível terciário é capaz de trazer melhor controle glicêmico para a maioria destes pacientes, especialmente quando encaminhados ainda com HbA1c não muito elevada

INTRODUCTION: Controlling hyperglycemia in diabetes mellitus is an important part of the treatment and is associated with long-term reduction of chronic complications. However, it is difficult to achieve, and different approaches to glycemic control are being investigated. We aimed to analyze glycemic control in a sample of patients treated at a tertiary hospital, as well as to analyze possible predictors of good glycemic control during follow-up. METHODS: In this observational study, we collected data from the electronic medical records of patients with type 2 diabetes treated at a reference outpatient clinic. We analyzed demographic, clinical and laboratory variables (blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), lipids, creatinine and microalbuminuria). RESULTS: Out of 57 patients, 61.4% had HbA1c levels ≤8% (controlled diabetes mellitus group, CDM), and 38.6% (n = 22) did not reach this value (uncontrolled diabetes mellitus group, UDM) in 1 year. Most patients in the UDM group were men (p = 0.030). Age, association with other comorbidities, educational attainment, and duration of diabetes were not different between groups. The number of scheduled appointments was similar between groups, but the number of attended appointments was higher in the UDM group. Initial glycemic control was worse in the UDM group (HbA1c 9.2 ±1.4 vs. 11.0 ±1.5%, p < 0.001). Outpatient discharge was more frequent in the CDM group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Intensifying diabetes care by a specialized team at tertiary centers can improve metabolic control for the majority of these patients, especially for those with a lower HbA1c at the time of referral