Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the severity of aortic arch calcification among type 2 diabetic patients in association with diabetes duration, diabetic complications, coronary artery disease and presence of cardiovascular risk factors. Patients and methods: This study included 207 type 2 diabetic patients (101 men) with a mean age of 61.5 ± 8.1 years and a mean diabetes duration of 13.9 ± 6.4 years. Aortic arch calcification was assessed by means of posteroanterior chest X-rays. Severity of calcification was graded as follows: grade 0 (no visible calcification), grade 1 (small spots of calcification or single thin calcification of the aortic knob), grade 2 (one or more areas of thick calcification), grade 3 (circular calcification of the aortic knob). Results: Severity of calcification was grade 0 in 84 patients (40.58%), grade 1 in 64 patients (30.92%), grade 2 in 43 patients (20.77%) and grade 3 in 16 patients (7.73%). In simple regression analysis severity of aortic arch calcification was associated with age (p = 0.032), duration of diabetes (p = 0.026), insulin dependence (p = 0.042) and presence of coronary artery disease (p = 0.039), hypertension (p = 0.019), dyslipidaemia (p = 0.029), retinopathy (p = 0.012) and microalbuminuria (p = 0.01). In multiple regression analysis severity of aortic arch calcification was associated with age (p = 0.04), duration of diabetes (p = 0.032) and presence of hypertension (p = 0.024), dyslipidaemia (p = 0.031) and coronary artery disease (p = 0.04), while the association with retinopathy, microalbuminuria and insulin dependence was no longer significant. Conclusions: Severity of aortic arch calcification is associated with age, diabetes duration, diabetic complications (retinopathy, microalbuminuria), coronary artery disease, insulin dependence, and presence of hypertension and dyslipidaemia.
Pantalone et al.: The risk of developing coronary artery disease or congestive heart failure, and overall mortality, in type 2 diabetic patients receiving rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, metformin, or sulfonylureas: a retrospective analysis
