4.1 Article

Burden and pattern of micro vascular complications in type 2 diabetes in a tertiary health institution in Nigeria.

期刊

AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 1136-1141

出版社

MAKERERE UNIV, FAC MED
DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v15i4.12

关键词

Type 2 diabetes; microvascular complications; prevalence; risk factors; Nigeria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Diabetes mellitus (DM) afflicts at least 5 million people in Nigeria, with more than 80% having type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Microvascular complications increase both morbidity and mortality inpatients with T2DM. The aims of this study were to report the burden of various microvascular complications in T2DM and to identify various factors associated with these complications in patients with T2DM attending the diabetes outpatients' clinic. Methods: Ninety (90) patients with T2DM who have attended diabetes clinic for at least 3 months were recruited for this study. Detailed history, physical examination and biochemical analysis was done in each of the patients. All patients underwent a detailed standard evaluation to detect diabetic retinopathy (fundoscopy), neuropathy (10g monofilament and/or diabetes neuropathy scores), and nephropathy (microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria, serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate). Results: There was high prevalence of microvascular complications among patients with T2DM. Almost half of patients with T2DM had some form of microvascular complications; diabetic neuropathy being the commonest (69.6%), followed by nephropathy (54.5%) and retinopathy (48.9%). The factors associated with developing these complications were increasing age, duration of diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia for nephropathy and neuropathy. Conclusion: There is a high burden of microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Age, male gender, hypertension, glycaemic control, BMI and duration of diabetes, and glycaemic control were factors associated with microvasular complications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据