Skip to main content

Table 4 Age–sex adjusted analysis for prediction of CMD in T2DM patients

From: Lack of correlation between the optimal glycaemic control and coronary micro vascular dysfunction in patients with diabetes mellitus: a cross sectional study

 

Independent CMD

OR (CI 95 %) p value

Dependent CMD

OR (CI 95 %) p value

Age (year)

1.06 (1.01–1.12) p 0.01*

0.98 (0.94–1.02) p 0.55

Female sex (%)

3.24 (1.24–9.14) p 0.01*

1.36 (0.90–1.02) p 0.23

BMI (kg/m2)

1.06 (0.99–1.48) p 0.07

0.96 (0.52–1.24) p 0.25

GFR MDRD (ml/min)

1.00 (0.98–1.02) p 0.49

0.97 (0.95–0.99) p 0.04*

Risk factors

 Hypertension (%)

1.16 (0.43–3.27) p 0.75

1.27 (0.52–3.26) p 0.59

 Triglycerides (mg/dl)

1.00 (0.99–1.00) p 0.87

0.99 (0.99–1.00) p 0.61

Diabetes control

 HBA1c (%)

1.21 (0.94–1.59) p 0.13

0.88 (0.67–1.12) p 0.32

 HBA1c < 7%

0.60 (0.23–1.46) p 0.26

0.99 (0.43–2.24) p 0.98

 Fasting glucose (mg/dl)

1.00 (0.99–1.01) p 0.67

0.99 (0.98–1.00) p 0.20

Medication

 Nitrates

1.50 (0.61–3.76) p 0.36

0.59 (0.26–1.36) p 0.22

 Lipid lowering

1.21 (0.48–3.07) p 0.68

1.22 (0.53–2.80) p 0.63

  1. CMD coronary microvascular dysfunction, BMI body mass index, GFR glomerular filtrate rate, CFR coronary flow reserve, CRF < 2.5 independent CMD, CBFAch<50 % endothelial dependent CMD.
  2. * Statistically significant.