ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We report that myocardial insulin resistance (mIR) occurs in around 60% of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and was associated with higher cardiovascular risk in comparison with patients with insulin-sensitive myocardium (mIS). These two phenotypes (mIR vs. mIS) can only be assessed using time-consuming and expensive methods. The aim of the present study is to search a simple and reliable surrogate to identify both phenotypes. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with T2D underwent myocardial [18F]FDG PET/CT at baseline and after a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (HEC) to determine mIR were prospectively recruited. Biochemical assessments were performed before and after the HEC. Baseline hepatic steatosis index and index of hepatic fibrosis (FIB-4) were calculated. Furthermore, liver stiffness measurement was performed using transient elastography. RESULTS: The best model to predict the presence of mIR was the combination of transaminases, protein levels, FIB-4 score and HOMA (AUC = 0.95; sensibility: 0.81; specificity: 0.95). We observed significantly higher levels of fibrosis in patients with mIR than in those with mIS (p = 0.034). In addition, we found that patients with mIR presented a reduced glucose uptake by the liver in comparison with patients with mIS. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of HOMA, protein, transaminases and FIB-4 is a simple and reliable tool for identifying mIR in patients with T2D. This information will be useful to improve the stratification of cardiovascular risk in T2D.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Insulin Resistance , Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/metabolism , Fibrosis , Humans , Liver/metabolism , Myocardium/metabolism , Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease/metabolism , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography , Transaminases/metabolismABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Systemic insulin resistance is generally postulated as an independent risk factor of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the role of myocardial insulin resistance (mIR) remains to be clarified. METHODS: Two 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were performed on forty-three T2D patients at baseline and after hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (HEC). Myocardial insulin sensitivity (mIS) was determined by measuring the increment in myocardial 18F-FDG uptake after HEC. Coronary artery calcium scoring (CACs) and myocardial radiodensity (mRD) were assessed by CT. RESULTS: After HEC, seventeen patients exhibited a strikingly enhancement of myocardial 18F-FDG uptake and twenty-six a marginal increase, thus revealing mIS and mIR, respectively. Patients with mIR showed higher mRD (HU: 38.95 [33.81-44.06] vs. 30.82 [21.48-38.02]; p = 0.03) and CACs > 400 (AU: 52% vs. 29%; p = 0.002) than patients with mIS. In addition, HOMA-IR and mIS only showed a correlation in those patients with mIR. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG PET combined with HEC is a reliable method for identifying patients with mIR. This subgroup of patients was found to be specifically at high risk of developing cardiovascular events and showed myocardial structural changes. Moreover, the gold-standard HOMA-IR index was only associated with mIR in this subgroup of patients. Our results open up a new avenue for stratifying patients with cardiovascular risk in T2D.
