Insulin resistance is significantly associated with the metabolic syndrome, but not with sonographically proven peripheral arterial disease

• Published in: Cardiovascular diabetology Vol. 12; no. 1; p. 106
• Main Authors: Vonbank, Alexander, Saely, Christoph H, Rein, Philipp, Drexel, Heinz
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central 17.07.2013; BioMed Central Ltd
• Subjects: Aged; Cardiovascular disease; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Diabetes; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - complications; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - metabolism; Female; Humans; Hypertension - complications; Insulin; Insulin Resistance; Intermittent Claudication - complications; Intermittent Claudication - diagnostic imaging; Intermittent Claudication - metabolism; Male; Metabolic syndrome; Metabolic Syndrome - complications; Metabolic Syndrome - metabolism; Middle Aged; Original Investigation; Peripheral Arterial Disease - complications; Peripheral Arterial Disease - diagnostic imaging; Peripheral Arterial Disease - metabolism; Ultrasonography
• ISSN: 1475-2840; 1475-2840
• 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.