Vorarlberg Institute for Vascular Investigation and Treatment (VIVIT), Feldkirch, Austria.
Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2013 Jul 17;12:106. doi: 10.1186/1475-2840-12-106.
Insulin resistance (IR) is the key feature of the metabolic syndrome (MetS); its association with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is unclear. We hypothesized that IR is associated with both the MetS and sonographically proven PAD.
IR was determined by the Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA) index in 214 patients with sonographically proven PAD as well as in 197 controls, who did not have a history of PAD and in whom coronary artery disease was ruled out angiographically; the MetS was defined according to NCEP-ATPIII criteria.
HOMA IR scores were significantly higher in MetS patients than in subjects without the MetS (5.9 ± 6.2 vs. 2.9 ± 3.9; p <0.001). However, HOMA IR did not differ significantly between patients with PAD and controls (4.2 ± 5.4 vs. 3.3 ± 4.3; p = 0.124). When both, the presence of MetS and of PAD were considered, HOMA IR was significantly higher in patients with the MetS both among those with PAD (6.1 ± 5.7 vs. 3.6 ± 5.2; p<0.001) and among controls (5.8 ± 6.8 vs. 2.3 ± 1.8; p <0.001), whereas it did not differ significantly between patients with PAD and controls among patients with the MetS (5.8 ± 6.8 vs. 6.1 ± 5.7; p = 0.587) nor among those without the MetS (2.3 ± 1.8 vs. 3.6 ± 5.2; p = 0.165). Similar results were obtained with the International Diabetes Federation definition of the MetS.
IR is significantly associated with the MetS but not with sonographically proven PAD.
胰岛素抵抗(IR)是代谢综合征(MetS)的关键特征;其与外周动脉疾病(PAD)的关系尚不清楚。我们假设 IR 与 MetS 和超声证实的 PAD 均有关。
在 214 例经超声证实的 PAD 患者和 197 例无 PAD 病史且经冠状动脉造影排除冠心病的对照组中,通过稳态模型评估(HOMA)指数确定 IR;MetS 按 NCEP-ATPIII 标准定义。
MetS 患者的 HOMA IR 评分明显高于无 MetS 患者(5.9 ± 6.2 比 2.9 ± 3.9;p<0.001)。然而,PAD 患者与对照组之间的 HOMA IR 无显著差异(4.2 ± 5.4 比 3.3 ± 4.3;p = 0.124)。当同时考虑 MetS 和 PAD 的存在时,无论在 PAD 患者还是在对照组中,MetS 患者的 HOMA IR 均明显高于无 MetS 患者(6.1 ± 5.7 比 3.6 ± 5.2;p<0.001),而在 PAD 患者与对照组之间,HOMA IR 无显著差异(5.8 ± 6.8 比 6.1 ± 5.7;p = 0.587),在无 MetS 患者中亦无显著差异(2.3 ± 1.8 比 3.6 ± 5.2;p = 0.165)。采用国际糖尿病联盟(IDF)定义 MetS 时也得到了类似的结果。
IR 与 MetS 显著相关,但与超声证实的 PAD 无关。