Clinical implications of combined glucose intolerance in treatment-naïve hypertensive patients. (17th November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kwon, Beom-June; Kim, Dae-Won; Park, Mahn-Won; Her, Sung-Ho; Park, Ha Wook; Chang, Kiyuk; Chung, Wook-Sung; Seung, Ki-Bae; Rho, Tai-Ho
• Is Part Of: Clinical and experimental hypertension. Volume 40:Number 8(2018)
• Page Start: 762
• Page End: 771
• Publication Date: 2018-11-17
• Subjects: Combined glucose intolerance -- hypertension -- oral glucose tolerance test -- normal glucose tolerance -- isolated glucose intolerance; Hypertension -- Chemotherapy -- Periodicals; Hypotensive agents -- Periodicals; 616.132
• DOI: 10.1080/10641963.2018.1431260
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1064-1963

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background : This study is the first study to evaluate clinical significance of combined glucose intolerance (CGI) in treatment-naïve hypertensive patients. Methods : We compared the results of demographic, anthropometric, clinical, laboratory examinations, echocardiography, arterial stiffness, central blood pressure (BP) and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) between the groups according to fasting blood sugar (FBS), postprandial 2 hour blood glucose (PP2) and gender in treatment-naïve hypertensive patients. A total of 376 concecutively-eligible patients were categorized as follows: (1) normal glucose tolerance (NGT); FBS<100 mg/dL and PP2 < 140 (2) isolated glucose intolerance (IGI); 100≤FBS<126 or 140≤PP2 < 200, but not both 100≤FBS<126 and 140≤PP2 < 200 (3) CGI; both 100≤FBS<126 and 140≤PP2 < 200. Results : Males were divided into NGT (n = 58, 33.1%), IGI (n = 88, 50.3%), CGI (n = 29, 16.6%) and females were divided into NGT (n = 59, 43.1%), IGI (n = 48, 35%), CGI (n = 30, 21.9%). In males multivariate analyses revealed that mitral average E/Ea (IGI vs CGI, p = 0.022), brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity baPWV(Rt.) (IGI vs CGI, p = 0.026), baPWV(Lt.) (IGI vs CGI, p = 0.018), office systolic BP (SBP) (NGT vs. CGI, p = 0.005; IGI vs. CGI, p = 0.001), office diastolic BP (DBP) (NGT vs. CGI, p = 0.034; IGI vs. CGI, p = 0.019), night-time SBP (NGT vs. CGI, p = 0.049; IGI vs. CGI, p = 0.018) were significantly higher in the CGI group than in the NGT or IGI group. However, there were no significant differences between the female groups. Conclusions : Treatment-naïve hypertensive males with CGI revealed subclinical diastolic dysfunction, arterial stiffness, and BPs.