Prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease among Non-Smokers with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Syndrome Defined By NCEPATP 111 (National Cholesterol Education Programme Adult Treatment Panel 111)
|Aye M1*, Cabot JSF1 and Razak MSA2|
|1Department of Medicine, UniKL Royal College of Medicine, Perak, Malaysia|
|2State Health Department, Ministry of Health, Perak, Malaysia|
|Corresponding Author :||Aye M
Department of Medicine
UniKL Royal College of Medicine, Perak, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]
|Received July 16, 2013; Accepted August 16, 2013; Published August 19, 2013|
|Citation: Aye M, Cabot JSF, Razak MSA (2013) Prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease among Non-Smokers with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Syndrome Defined By NCEPATP 111 (National Cholesterol Education Programme Adult Treatment Panel 111). J Metabolic Synd 2:123. doi:10.4172/2167-0943.1000123|
|Copyright: © 2013 Aye M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.|
Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) incidence varies according to certain risks; patients with pre-existing cardiovascular heart disease who later develop diabetes mellitus (DM) have the greatest risk, and non-diabetic patients with CAD, diabetic patients without CAD, and patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) the next three high risk categories. Insulin resistance, a major feature in both DM and MetS probably causes atherogenic dyslipidaemia.
Objectives: (1) to determine the prevalence of MetS and DM in the study population, (2) to determine the prevalence of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) in DM with MetS (DM+/MetS+), in DM alone (DM+/MetS-), MetS alone (Mets+/DM-) and in ‘normal’ group (DM-/MetS-), and (3) to determine the prevalence of MetS in DM patients.
Results: 62.1% of the study population had MetS, 44.7% had DM, 83.6% had both MetS and DM. 18.6% had CAD. CAD was seen in 25.2% of DM+/MetS+, 19.1% of MetS+/DM-, 14.3% of DM+/MetS-, and 11.6% of MetS-/DMpatients. DM+/MetS+ group had the highest association with CAD OR= 2.19, CI (1.43-3.35), DM-/MetS- group the lowest association OR=0.45, CI (0.27-0.73), and DM+/MetS- (OR=0.69, CI (0.28-1.73) and MetS+/DM- (OR=0.94, CI (0.57- 1.58) had no significant association with CAD.
Conclusion: Only DM+/MetS+ patients had a high risk of developing CAD. Risk of CAD in patients with MetS+/ DM- and DM+/MetS- was not statistically significant in multivariate analysis, while the group with neither, MS-/DM-, had the lowest risk of developing CAD.