Glucose variability, another measure of glycemic control, also relates to CV outcomes. This metric quantitates the change in glucose concentration from before a meal to that obtained afterwards and can be used to assess risk and monitor treatment effectiveness. When control is targeted to minimize glucose fluctuations, even if the HbA1c is above normal, there are cardiovascular advantages.

Consider an example of two patients with type 2 diabetes and similar HbA1c results: one patient with the continuous glucose monitoring (CGMS) tracing A, the other with tracing B (Figure 1). The tracings record three days each. Then ask, .Do these two patients have the same cardiovascular risk?. Current evidence suggests the answer is no! The patient with tracing A, with greater variability, carries a two- to three-fold increased risk of primary and secondary macrovascular disease.2,3 The purpose of this review is to examine the relationship between glucose variability and cardiovascular disease.

Controlling blood glucose in patients with diabetes mellitus reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications.1 While the UK Prospective Diabetes Study and others have related fasting plasma glucose level (FPG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) to CV outcomes, a recent interim analysis of the major NIH-funded study of patients with type 2 diabetes, the ACCORD trial, now indicates that there might be a limit to the benefits and degree of HbA1c reduction. Although specifics of the trial are yet to be published, the data analysis and safety board terminated the tight control arm of this treatment trial because of a small but significant increase in mortality. As a result, the target HbA1c for many patients with CVD will, in all likelihood, remain above the nondiabetic range.
" />
Glucose variability, another measure of glycemic control, also relates to CV outcomes. This metric quantitates the change in glucose concentration from before a meal to that obtained afterwards and can be used to assess risk and monitor treatment effectiveness. When control is targeted to minimize glucose fluctuations, even if the HbA1c is above normal, there are cardiovascular advantages.

Consider an example of two patients with type 2 diabetes and similar HbA1c results: one patient with the continuous glucose monitoring (CGMS) tracing A, the other with tracing B (Figure 1). The tracings record three days each. Then ask, .Do these two patients have the same cardiovascular risk?. Current evidence suggests the answer is no! The patient with tracing A, with greater variability, carries a two- to three-fold increased risk of primary and secondary macrovascular disease.2,3 The purpose of this review is to examine the relationship between glucose variability and cardiovascular disease.

Controlling blood glucose in patients with diabetes mellitus reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications.1 While the UK Prospective Diabetes Study and others have related fasting plasma glucose level (FPG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) to CV outcomes, a recent interim analysis of the major NIH-funded study of patients with type 2 diabetes, the ACCORD trial, now indicates that there might be a limit to the benefits and degree of HbA1c reduction. Although specifics of the trial are yet to be published, the data analysis and safety board terminated the tight control arm of this treatment trial because of a small but significant increase in mortality. As a result, the target HbA1c for many patients with CVD will, in all likelihood, remain above the nondiabetic range.
"> Article Full Text – Methodist Journal
Methodist Journal

IN THIS ISSUE

Adult Congenital Heart Update

Vol 15, Issue 2 (2019)


FEATURED GUEST EDITOR

ISSUE INTRO

The Growing Number of Adults Surviving with Congenital Heart Disease

See More
RECOGNITIONS

Drs. MacGillivray and Lin Take the Lead in Adult Congenital Heart Disease

See More

REVIEW ARTICLES See More

Advanced Cardiac Imaging for Complex Adult Congenital Heart Diseases

149 Fontan Conversions

Anomalous Aortic Origin of a Coronary Artery

Pulmonary Valve Replacement for Tetralogy of Fallot

Management of the Adult with Arterial Switch

Ebstein’s Anomaly

Heart Transplantation in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease

Cholesterol: Can’t Live With It, Can’t Live Without It

CASE REPORTS See More

Simultaneous Transfemoral Mitral and Tricuspid Valve in Ring Implantation: First Case Report with Edwards Sapien 3 Valve

Uneventful Follow-Up 2 Years after Endovascular Treatment of a High Flow Iatrogenic Aortocaval Fistula Causing Pulmonary Hypertension and Right Heart Failure

Device-Related Thrombus: A Reason for Concern?

Retained Coronary Balloon Requiring Emergent Open Surgical Retrieval: An Uncommon Complication Requiring Individualized Management Strategies

MUSEUM OF HMH MULTIMODALITY IMAGING CENTER See More

Do I Look Fat in This? Multimodality Imaging Findings of a Cardiac Lipoma

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVES See More

POINTS TO REMEMBER

The Kidney in Congenital Cyanotic Heart Disease

EXCERPTA

Talking Statins with Antonio Gotto

POINTS TO REMEMBER

Lipids and Renal Disease

EXCERPTA

Addressing the Feedback Loop Between Depression, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease

EDITORIALS

Letter to the Editor in Response to “Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy in Diabetes Mellitus”

Vol 4, Issue 2 (2008)

Article Full Text

REVIEW ARTICLES

Glucose Variability And Cardiovascular Risk

Jump to:
Article Citation:

Dale J. Hamilton (2008) Glucose Variability And Cardiovascular Risk. Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal: April 2008, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 17-20.

doi: https://doi.org/10.14797/mdcj-4-2-17

Abstract

Glucose variability, another measure of glycemic control, also relates to CV outcomes. This metric quantitates the change in glucose concentration from before a meal to that obtained afterwards and can be used to assess risk and monitor treatment effectiveness. When control is targeted to minimize glucose fluctuations, even if the HbA1c is above normal, there are cardiovascular advantages.

Consider an example of two patients with type 2 diabetes and similar HbA1c results: one patient with the continuous glucose monitoring (CGMS) tracing A, the other with tracing B (Figure 1). The tracings record three days each. Then ask, .Do these two patients have the same cardiovascular risk?. Current evidence suggests the answer is no! The patient with tracing A, with greater variability, carries a two- to three-fold increased risk of primary and secondary macrovascular disease.2,3 The purpose of this review is to examine the relationship between glucose variability and cardiovascular disease.

Controlling blood glucose in patients with diabetes mellitus reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications.1 While the UK Prospective Diabetes Study and others have related fasting plasma glucose level (FPG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) to CV outcomes, a recent interim analysis of the major NIH-funded study of patients with type 2 diabetes, the ACCORD trial, now indicates that there might be a limit to the benefits and degree of HbA1c reduction. Although specifics of the trial are yet to be published, the data analysis and safety board terminated the tight control arm of this treatment trial because of a small but significant increase in mortality. As a result, the target HbA1c for many patients with CVD will, in all likelihood, remain above the nondiabetic range.

Keywords
cardiovascular disease , macravascular disease , blood glucose , diabetes

Add Comments

Please login to dialogue with author.

Comments