Study of ophthalmic artery hemodynamic pattern in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2012;34(10):473-477
PURPOSES: To evaluate the hemodynamic patterns of the ophthalmic artery by Doppler analysis in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), comparing them to normal pregnant women. METHODS: A prospective case-control study that analyzed the ophthalmic artery Doppler indices in two groups: one consisting of 40 women diagnosed with GDM and the other of 40 normal pregnant women. Included were pregnant women with GDM criteria of the American Diabetes Association – 2012, with 27 weeks of pregnancy to term, and excluded were women with hypertension, use of vasoactive drugs on or previous diagnosis of diabetes. Doppler analysis was performed in one eye with a 10 MHz linear transducer and the Sonoace 8000 Live Medison® equipment . The following variables were analyzed: pulsatility index (PI), resistance index (RI), peak velocity ratio (PVR), peak systolic velocity (PSV) and end diastolic velocity (EDV). To analyze the normality of the samples we used the Lillefors test, and to compare means and medians we used the Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney test according to data normality, with the level of significance set at 95%. RESULTS: The median and mean values with standard deviation of the variables of the ophthalmic artery Dopplervelocimetry group GDM and normal pregnant women were: IP=1.7±0.6 and 1.6±0.4 (p=0.7); IR=0.7 and 0.7 (p=0.9); RPV=0.5±0.1 and 0.5±0.1 (p=0.1), PSV=33.6 and 31.9 cm/sec (p=0.7); VDF=6.3 and 7.9 cm/sec (p=0.4). There was no significant difference in the means and medians of these variables between the two groups of pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: The ophthalmic artery hemodynamic patterns, analyzed by means of a Doppler technique remained unchanged in the group of pregnant women with GDM compared to the group of normal pregnant women, suggesting that the time of exposure to the disease during pregnancy was too short to cause significant vascular disorders in the central territory.
Search
Search in:
Search
Search in:
PURPOSES: To evaluate the hemodynamic patterns of the ophthalmic artery by Doppler analysis in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), comparing them to normal pregnant women. METHODS: A prospective case-control study that analyzed the ophthalmic artery Doppler indices in two groups: one consisting of 40 women diagnosed with GDM and the other of 40 normal pregnant women. Included were pregnant women with GDM criteria of the American Diabetes Association - 2012, with 27 weeks of pregnancy to term, and excluded were women with hypertension, use of vasoactive drugs on or previous diagnosis of diabetes. Doppler analysis was performed in one eye with a 10 MHz linear transducer and the Sonoace 8000 Live Medison® equipment . The following variables were analyzed: pulsatility index (PI), resistance index (RI), peak velocity ratio (PVR), peak systolic velocity (PSV) and end diastolic velocity (EDV). To analyze the normality of the samples we used the Lillefors test, and to compare means and medians we used the Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney test according to data normality, with the level of significance set at 95%. RESULTS: The median and mean values with standard deviation of the variables of the ophthalmic artery Dopplervelocimetry group GDM and normal pregnant women were: IP=1.7±0.6 and 1.6±0.4 (p=0.7); IR=0.7 and 0.7 (p=0.9); RPV=0.5±0.1 and 0.5±0.1 (p=0.1), PSV=33.6 and 31.9 cm/sec (p=0.7); VDF=6.3 and 7.9 cm/sec (p=0.4). There was no significant difference in the means and medians of these variables between the two groups of pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: The ophthalmic artery hemodynamic patterns, analyzed by means of a Doppler technique remained unchanged in the group of pregnant women with GDM compared to the group of normal pregnant women, suggesting that the time of exposure to the disease during pregnancy was too short to cause significant vascular disorders in the central territory.
Comments