SummaryPrevalence of diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus Objectives. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of legal blindness in young adults. Scarce data from Brazilian subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) are available. Aims: The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of DR and its risk factors in type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) outpatients from a general hospital. MethOds. A cross-sectional study of 437 type 1 DM (50.3% males, 82.4% whites) was conducted. DR was graded as absent, mild and moderate non-proliferative DR (mild/moderate NPDR) or severe non-proliferative and proliferative DR (advanced DR). Presence of clinically significant macular edema (CSME) was also recorded. Results. Any DR was present in 44.4% of subjects. In multivariate analysis, DM duration, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and A1C test were associated with mild/moderate NPDR (P<0.005). Advanced DR, was associated with DM duration, SBP, smoking [odds ratio (OR) 2.75, 95%CI 1.15-6.60] and micro-or macroalbuminuria (OR 8.53,. CSME was present in 21 (9.4%) patients and was associated with smoking (OR 3.19,. Its frequency increased with the severity of DR (16.4% in advanced DR, 9.6% in mild/moderate NPDR, and 4.7% in the group without DR; P = 0.020). cOnclusiOn. Patients with type 1 DM attending an endocrine out-patient clinic at a general hospital had a high prevalence of DR associated with traditional risk-factors and smoking.

The main risk factors for the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) are chronic hyperglycemia, disease duration and systemic blood pressure. So far chronic hyperglycemia is the strongest evidence concerning the risk of developing DR. However there are some patients with poor metabolic control who never develop this diabetic complication. We present a case of a 73-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes mellitus, diagnosed 69 years ago. The patient is 73 years old, with no evidence of DR, despite poor glycemic control and several risk factors for DR. This case suggests the presence of a possible protection factor, which could be genetic.

No abstract