No abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index, its reciprocal (1/HOMA-IR), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) and McAuley's index in hypertensive diabetic patients. In 78 patients with hypertension and type II diabetes glucose, insulin and triglyceride levels were determined after a 12-h fast to calculate these indices, and insulin sensitivity (IS) was measured with the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp technique. Two weeks later, subjects had again their glucose, insulin and triglycerides measured. Simple and multiple linear regression analysis were applied to assess the validity of these indices compared to clamp IS and coefficients of variation between the two visits were estimated to assess their reproducibility. HOMA-IR index was strongly and inversely correlated with the basic IS clamp index, the Mvalue (r ¼ À0.572, Po0.001), M-value normalized with subjects' body weight or fat-free mass and every other clamp-derived index. 1/HOMA-IR and QUICKI indices were positively correlated with the M-value (r ¼ 0.342, Po0.05 and r ¼ 0.456, Po0.01, respectively) and the rest clamp indices. McAuley's index generally presented less strong correlations (r ¼ 0.317, Po0.05 with M-value). In multivariate analysis, HOMA-IR was the best fit of clampderived IS. Coefficients of variation between the two visits were 23.5% for HOMA-IR, 19.2% for 1/HOMA-IR, 7.8% for QUICKI and 15.1% for McAuley's index. In conclusion, HOMA-IR, 1/HOMA-IR and QUICKI are valid estimates of clamp-derived IS in patients with hypertension and type II diabetes, whereas the validity of McAuley's index needs further evaluation. QUICKI displayed better reproducibility than the other indices.

ClinicalTrials.gov Database Identifier Number: NCT01126684.

Background/Aims: Elevated wave reflections and arterial stiffness, as well as ambulatory blood pressure (BP) are independent predictors of cardiovascular risk in end-stage-renal-disease. This study is the first to evaluate in hemodialysis patients the validity of a new ambulatory oscillometric device (Mobil-O-Graph, IEM, Germany), which estimates aortic BP, augmentation index (AIx) and pulse wave velocity (PWV). Methods: Aortic SBP (aSBP), heart rate-adjusted AIx (AIx(75)) and PWV measured with Mobil-O-Graph were compared with the values from the most widely used tonometric device (Sphygmocor, ArtCor, Australia) in 73 hemodialysispatients. Measurements were made in a randomized order after 10 min of rest in the supine position at least 30 min before a dialysis session. Brachial BP (mercury sphygmomanometer) was used for the calibration of Sphygmocor's waveform. Results: Sphygmocor-derivedaSBP and AIx(75) did not differ from the relevant Mobil-O-Graph measurements (aSBP: 136.3 ± 19.6 vs. 133.5 ± 19.3 mm Hg, p = 0.068; AIx(75): 28.4 ± 9.3 vs. 30.0 ± 11.8%, p = 0.229). The small difference in aSBP is perhaps explained by a relevant difference in brachial SBP used for calibration (146.9 ± 20.4 vs. 145.2 ± 19.9 mm Hg, p = 0.341). Sphygmocor PWV was higher than Mobil-O-Graph PWV (10.3 ± 3.4 vs. 9.5 ± 2.1 m/s, p < 0.01). All 3 parameters estimated by Mobil-O-Graph showed highly significant (p < 0.001) correlations with the relevant measurements of Sphygmocor (aSBP, r = 0.770; AIx(75), r = 0.400; PWV, r = 0.739). The Bland-Altman Plots for aSBP and AIx(75) showed acceptable agreement between the two devices and no evidence of systemic bias for PWV. Conclusion: As in other populations, acceptable agreement between Mobil-O-Graph and Sphygmocor was evident for aSBP and AIx(75) in hemodialysis patients; PWV was slightly underestimated by Mobil-O-Graph.