Cardiovascular risk markers in polycystic ovary syndrome in women with and without insulin resistance - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2009;31(3):111-116
PURPOSE: to evaluate whether the presence of insulin resistance (IR) alters cardiovascular risk factors in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (POS). METHODS: transversal study where 60 POS women with ages from 18 to 35 years old, with no hormone intake, were evaluated. IR was assessed through the quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) and defined as QUICKI <0.33. The following variables have been compared between the groups with or without IR: anthropometric (weight, height, waist circumference, arterial blood pressure, cardiac frequency), laboratorial (homocysteine, interleucines-6, factor of tumoral-α necrosis, testosterone, fraction of free androgen, total cholesterol and fractions, triglycerides, C reactive protein, insulin, glucose), and ultrasonographical (distensibility and carotid intima-media thickness, dilation mediated by the brachial artery flux). RESULTS: Eighteen women (30%) presented IR and showed significant differences in the following anthropometric markers, as compared to the women without IR (POS with and without IR respectively): body mass index (35.56±5.69 kg/m² versus 23.90±4.88 kg/m², p<0.01), waist (108.17±11.53 versus 79.54±11.12 cm, p<0.01), systolic blood pressure (128.00±10.80 mmHg versus 114.07±8.97 mmHg, p<0.01), diastolic blood pressure (83.67±9.63 mmHg versus 77.07±7.59 mmHg, p=0.01). It has also been observed significant differences in the following laboratorial markers: triglycerides (120.00±56.53 mg/dL versus 77.79±53.46 mg/dL, p=0.01), HDL (43.06±6.30 mg/dL versus 40.45±10.82 mg/dL, p=0.01), reactive C protein (7.98±10.54 mg/L versus 2.61±3.21 mg/L, p<0.01), insulin (28.01±18.18 µU/mL versus 5.38±2.48 µU/mL, p<0.01), glucose (93.56±10.00 mg/dL versus 87.52±8.75 mg/dL, p=0.02). Additionally, two out of the three ultrasonographical markers of cardiovascular risk were also different between the groups: carotid distensibility (0.24±0.05 mmHg-1 versus 0.30±0.08 mmHg-1, p<0.01) and carotid intima-media thickness (0.52±0.08 mm versus 0.43±0.09, p<0.01). Besides, the metabolic syndrome ratio was higher in women with IR (nine cases=50% versus three cases=7.1%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: POS and IR women present significant differences in several ultrasonographical, seric and anthropometric markers, which point out to higher cardiovascular risk, as compared to women without POS and IR. In face of that, the systematic IR evaluation in POS women may help to identify patients with cardiovascular risk.
Search
Search in:
Search
Search in:
PURPOSE: to evaluate whether the presence of insulin resistance (IR) alters cardiovascular risk factors in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (POS). METHODS: transversal study where 60 POS women with ages from 18 to 35 years old, with no hormone intake, were evaluated. IR was assessed through the quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) and defined as QUICKI <0.33. The following variables have been compared between the groups with or without IR: anthropometric (weight, height, waist circumference, arterial blood pressure, cardiac frequency), laboratorial (homocysteine, interleucines-6, factor of tumoral-α necrosis, testosterone, fraction of free androgen, total cholesterol and fractions, triglycerides, C reactive protein, insulin, glucose), and ultrasonographical (distensibility and carotid intima-media thickness, dilation mediated by the brachial artery flux). RESULTS: Eighteen women (30%) presented IR and showed significant differences in the following anthropometric markers, as compared to the women without IR (POS with and without IR respectively): body mass index (35.56±5.69 kg/m² versus 23.90±4.88 kg/m², p<0.01), waist (108.17±11.53 versus 79.54±11.12 cm, p<0.01), systolic blood pressure (128.00±10.80 mmHg versus 114.07±8.97 mmHg, p<0.01), diastolic blood pressure (83.67±9.63 mmHg versus 77.07±7.59 mmHg, p=0.01). It has also been observed significant differences in the following laboratorial markers: triglycerides (120.00±56.53 mg/dL versus 77.79±53.46 mg/dL, p=0.01), HDL (43.06±6.30 mg/dL versus 40.45±10.82 mg/dL, p=0.01), reactive C protein (7.98±10.54 mg/L versus 2.61±3.21 mg/L, p<0.01), insulin (28.01±18.18 µU/mL versus 5.38±2.48 µU/mL, p<0.01), glucose (93.56±10.00 mg/dL versus 87.52±8.75 mg/dL, p=0.02). Additionally, two out of the three ultrasonographical markers of cardiovascular risk were also different between the groups: carotid distensibility (0.24±0.05 mmHg-1 versus 0.30±0.08 mmHg-1, p<0.01) and carotid intima-media thickness (0.52±0.08 mm versus 0.43±0.09, p<0.01). Besides, the metabolic syndrome ratio was higher in women with IR (nine cases=50% versus three cases=7.1%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: POS and IR women present significant differences in several ultrasonographical, seric and anthropometric markers, which point out to higher cardiovascular risk, as compared to women without POS and IR. In face of that, the systematic IR evaluation in POS women may help to identify patients with cardiovascular risk.
Comments