4.7 Article

Clinical Profile of Long-Term Survivors and Nonsurvivors With Type 2 Diabetes

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 2190-2197

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc12-1193

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVETo compare clinical profile of long-term survivors and nonsurvivors with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSAfter conducting a retrospective survey of >200,000 case records, we identified T2DM survivors (>40 years of duration) and age at diagnosis and sex-matched T2DM nonsurvivors. Prevalence of complications and causes of death were analyzed. Retinopathy was diagnosed by retinal photography. Microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, peripheral vascular disease based on ankle-brachial index <0.9, coronary artery disease based on history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization, and neuropathy based on vibration perception threshold >20 V were compared in both groups.RESULTSThe mean duration of diabetes of survivors (n = 238) was 43.7 3.9 years, and that of the nonsurvivors (n = 307), at time of death, was 22.4 +/- 11.0 years (P < 0.001). Nonsurvivors had significantly higher systolic and diastolic blood pressures, plasma glucose, HbA(1c), serum cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides and lower HDL cholesterol compared with long-term survivors (P < 0.001 for all parameters except systolic blood pressure, which was P = 0.027). Myocardial infarction (46.4%) and renal failure (16.6%) were the most common causes of death. Prevalence of most complications was higher among survivors because of longer duration and older age, as follows, for survivors versus nonsurvivors: retinopathy, 76 vs. 62%; microalbuminuria, 39.1 vs. 27.3%; macroalbuminuria, 8.4 vs. 23.7%; neuropathy, 86.5 vs. 63.5%; peripheral vascular disease, 23.1 vs. 11.4%; and coronary artery disease, 44.5 vs. 40.7%.CONCLUSIONSLong-term survivors with T2DM had better glycemic and blood pressure control and more favorable lipid profiles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available