ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study was to analyze the relationships between echocardiographic findings, brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity, and carotid atherosclerosis in type 2 diabetic patients. In 70 type 2 diabetic patients without cardiovascular disease, pulse wave velocity was measured using an automatic waveform analyzer, and the carotid plaque score was obtained by carotid ultrasonography. The left ventricular wall thickness and the indexes of left ventricular diastolic function (the peak velocity of early rapid filling [E velocity], the peak velocity of atrial filling [A velocity], and the E/A ratio) were obtained by echocardiography. Brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity correlated significantly with the carotid plaque score, but the correlation was weak (r=0.37, p=0.001). The brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity demonstrated a strong correlation with the A velocity (r=0.73, p<0.001), the ratio of E to A (E/A) (r=-0.63, p<0.001), and the deceleration time of the E velocity (r=0.48, p<0.001). Stepwise regression analysis showed that the A velocity (beta coefficient=0.42, p<0.001) and ventricular septal thickness at the left ventricular outflow tract (beta coefficient=0.27, p=0.001) were independently associated with brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity. Stepwise regression analysis indicated that ventricular septal thickness at the left ventricular outflow tract (beta coefficient=0.38, p=0.001) was independently associated with the plaque score. These results indicate that left ventricular diastolic dysfunction as revealed by increased peak velocity of atrial filling reflects arterial stiffening in type 2 diabetic patients. In addition, myocardial wall thickening at the left ventricular outflow tract reflects not only arterial stiffening but also carotid atherosclerosis. Therefore, these abnormal echocardiographic findings of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and myocardial wall thickening may be useful markers of the presence of progressive arteriosclerosis in type 2 diabetic patients.
Hypertension Research 12/2005; 28(12):965-71. · 2.58 Impact Factor