4. Discussion
Usually, it is not easy to collect all participants for the second stage of a study after several years. In our study, this problem was exacerbated by the height of the COVID pandemic. Nevertheless, after analyzing the obtained results, we decided to publish them despite the small number of study participants. So, what can our study add to what is already known?
It is known that diabetes is associated with an increased risk of HF, and DCM refers to the abnormal structure and function of the heart associated with the metabolic disorders of diabetes in the absence of other leading cardiac factors such as hypertension, coronary heart disease and valvular heart disease. At the initial stage, DCM does not manifest itself clinically for quite a long time [
6]. This makes its recognition difficult given the lack of specific diagnostic criteria. Depending on the used criteria, according to a large pooled epidemiological cohort study, the prevalence of DD varies widely (11.7–67%) [
7]. A recent retrospective study in real-world clinical practice indicates that DCM affects a significant portion of T2D patients. About 16% of T2D patients with asymptomatic stage B of HF (SBHF) (3% of the entire T2D population) had “pure” DCM that is associated solely with T2D. The remaining 84% (at least 15% of the entire T2D population) had “mixed” SBHF that may result from the coexistence of T2D and other comorbidities, such as HTN and CAD [
8].
Echocardiography is a foundation for assessment of myocardial structure and function. The main echocardiographic signs of a diabetic heart are: systolic, diastolic dysfunction and abnormal LV geometry [
9]. Regarding LV geometry, the early stage of DCM is characterized by concentric LV hypertrophy with normal LV diameter and volume despite the fact that DCM was initially described as a dilated phenotype with eccentric remodeling and LV systolic dysfunction [
10]. The estimated prevalence of LV hypertrophy is approximately 70% in adult patients with diabetes [
11]. In our study, the most common type of LV myocardial remodeling was concentric hypertrophy: 22% in the T2D group compared with controls (12%, p=0.01). Moreover, during the observation period, the former experienced a significant increase in the proportion of patients with concentric hypertrophy to 53% (p = 0.025), while there was no significant increase in the control group.
The initial stage of DCM is characterized by a concentric phenotype with a predominance of diastolic dysfunction. According to a large systematic review with meta-analysis by Bouthorn S. et al., the pooled prevalence of DD in men and women with T2D in the hospital population was 48% (95% CI: 38-59%), and it was 35% (95% CI: 24-46%) in the overall population. Heterogeneity of the results associated with different diagnostic criteria across studies was high in both populations, with estimates ranging from 19% to 81% in the hospital population and from 23% to 54% in the general population [
12]. As a result, Grigorescu E.D. et al., having compared studies with different approaches to determining DD, found that the 2016 European Society of Cardiology definition of DD [
13] is more effective not only for selecting “undetected” cases of DD among patients with T2D, but also for predicting severe cardiovascular events (using the E/e' ratio >14) in patients with established DD [
14]. In the present study, this algorithm was used based on tissue Doppler parameters in combination with indexed definition of the left atrium and the peak velocity of tricuspid regurgitation. Initially, the DD (delayed relaxation) was present in 53% of patients with T2D and 32% without diabetes [
2]. Over a 7-year follow-up, the presence of T2D statistically significantly increased this prevalence to 61% (p=0,004) regardless of age, HTN, dyslipidemia, and obesity. At the same time, the diastole disturbance remained at the level of 1st degree, that is, delayed relaxation. There were no statistically significant changes of diastolic function in the control group.
As for the systolic function, with normal LVEF, an advanced echocardiographic technique with tracking the trajectory of myocardial acoustic markers (speckles) during the cardiac cycle was used to diagnose more subtle disorders. It seems more accurate in the modern era of precision medicine. It is also especially in demand, given that the current time is marked by the predominance of HFpEF, in which EF has no prognostic value [
15]. The most robust and reproducible parameter of myocardial strain is GLS. It reflects the percentage change in the length of the heart muscle during the cardiac cycle. A negative value of this parameter indicates systolic shortening of the myocardium, and a higher absolute value indicates a better LV systolic function. GLS serves as a reliable parameter for assessing systolic function of the LV myocardium in HFpEF [
16,
17] including patients with T2D [
18,
19]. In addition, it was demonstrated prognostic significance of GLS, reduction of which was independently associated with adverse long-term, 10-year outcomes in asymptomatic patients with T2D [
20]. In our prior study, speckle-tracking analysis has showed significant differences between diabetes and control groups [
2]. Over the 7-year follow-up, the proportion of patients with a reduced absolute level of GLS has increased in the T2D group from 45% to 72% (p = 0.036), meanwhile there was no significant increase (p = 0.62) in the control group.
Using Kaplan-Meier curves, we demonstrated that the presence of T2D statistically significantly shortens the life without developing or worsening LVD, both diastolic function and GLS. In a multivariate regression analysis, independent predictors of the development of DD were not only the presence of T2D, but also indicators of carbohydrate metabolism disorders (fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin and HOMA index) and inflammation (hsC-reactive protein). Along with the HOMA index and hsCRP, obesity was found to be an independent predictor of the development of GLS. The full pathogenesis of DCM remains unclear to this day. It is clear that the main triggers for its development are hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. Among the many pathogenetic mechanisms underlying the functional and structural abnormalities of the diabetic heart, inflammation plays a significant role [
21,
22]. As a result, the data we obtained on the independent relationship of DCM with indicators of glycemia, insulin resistance, and inflammation confirm the basic postulates of the pathogenesis of diabetic cardiomyopathy.
Given the high prevalence of subclinical HF in diabetes, as well as the lack of specific diagnostic criteria for DCM, the American Diabetes Association proposes using the Universal Definition of HF criteria both echocardiographic and laboratory [
23]. Their consensus document recommends testing natriuretic peptides or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in diabetes at least once a year to diagnose subclinical HF and assess its risk of progression to clinical HF. Based on the results of population and clinical studies, they recommend considering the threshold values of biomarkers for HF as the cut-off points for DCM: BNP - 50 pg/ml, NT-proBNP - 125 pg/ml, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin - >99th percentile [
1].
But, this recommendation does not seem to be flawless: the use of BNP for the diagnosis of DCM, especially subclinical, is problematic. There is increasing evidence of normal levels of natriuretic peptide in the blood in a significant proportion of patients with HFpEF [
24,
25,
26], which does not equate to the absence of HF. It is noteworthy that the title of the editorial for one of these papers contained a mnemonic phrase with an alternative decoding of the abbreviation: BNP – Biomarker Not Perfect [
27]. In the prior work of our group, we studied the relationship of structural and functional changes in the myocardium with blood biomarkers in asymptomatic patients with T2D and also assessed the possibility of using of BNP levels as a diagnostic criterion for DCM. We solved the first task by obtaining clear associations. As for second task, the insufficient level of increase of blood NT-proBNP, within the reference values (68 pg/ml [35–108]), also demonstrated the “imperfection” of natriuretic peptides, which means the ineffectiveness of its use in the diagnosis of subclinical LVD in T2D [
28].
However, this biomarker should not be completely discounted, because it can be used to identify the degree of structural and functional cardiac disorders in patients with T2D. We suppose that low levels of NT-proBNP indicate an earlier subclinical stage of DCM, characterized by initial signs of diastolic dysfunction (delayed LV relaxation), a slight decrease in GLP, and initial remodelling of the LV myocardium by type of concentric hypertrophy. Over the 7-year follow-up, the level of NT-proBNP increased statistically significantly only in the T2D group and not in the control group. This increase in the level of NT-proBNP correlates with a deterioration in DD parameters, a decrease in GLS, and LV remodeling of the concentric hypertrophy type. Thus, the increase in the levels of NT-proBNP occurred within the reference values and this correlated with the worsening of LVD, it is important to note, within the subclinical dysfunction range. In contrast, in the study of Dal Canto et al., it was demonstrated that high levels of natriuretic peptides corresponded to more advanced HFpEF with greater LV myocardial stiffness due to more severe myocardial extracellular matrix remodeling as assessed by echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging [
29].
It is clear that there is no clarity regarding the diagnosis and prevalence of DCM. However, there is even less uncertainty regarding its prognostic value due to the few prospective long-term studies. The first study in asymptomatic patients with T2D over a 10-year follow-up demonstrates poor prognosis associated with subclinical LV dysfunction measured by GLS. The primary endpoints for this study were all-cause mortality and hospitalisation [
17].
In our study, we did not obtain any so-called hard endpoints including overt heart failure. We assessed the results using surrogate points, the dynamics of myocardial function (DD and GLS). We obtained significant negative dynamics of these indicators in the group of patients with T2D compared with people without it. However, none of the study participants progressed to the clinically manifested stage of HF over a 7-year follow-up. We attribute this to two reasons. The first, perhaps, is due to the fact that the study included people with uncomplicated T2DM and normal blood levels of NT-proBNP without clinical manifestations of CVD and/or stage II-III obesity. Moreover, it can be assumed that the “healthiest” subjects responded to the offer to participate in the repeat study. Therefore, patients who refused and were lost to the study were “less healthy” and could have poor clinical outcomes, even death. However, this information is unknown to us. Another reason for the lack of poor clinical outcomes is that all patients in the repeat study were under close medical supervision. They received recommendations on a healthy lifestyle, proper nutrition, and physical activity. They had adequate antihypertensive, antihyperglycemic, and lipid-lowering therapy. According to the results of the 2nd point, patients with T2D showed a significant decrease in the level of glycated hemoglobin. Also, participants in the stage 2 of the study did not have a significant increase in body weight, nor a decrease in exercise tolerance. This allows us to conclude that proper control of cardiovascular risk factors, including good control of glycemia, weight, blood pressure and lipidemia, can avoid adverse outcomes over a 7-year follow-up.
Prospective trials are necessary not only to study the prognostic value of DCM, but also to solve one of its essential issues, which remains unclear. Do its two main phenotypes, restrictive and dilated, represent two separate diseases or an evolution of the same thing? Today, the second version seems more plausible. Indeed, initially, DCM proceeds according to the first type corresponding to HFpEF, and subsequently, due to the addition of complications, e.g. coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction, the second dilated type of DCM develops corresponding to HFrEF. Initial DCM thus represents a transitional phenotype prior to the onset of symptomatic HF. In this regard, it seems quite accurate to divide DCM into “pure” (early) and “mixed” (later, with concomitant diseases and complications) [
7]. We were unable to contribute to the resolution of this issue since we did not obtain a single hard endpoint, including the development of overt HF due to dilated DCM. However, we understand that asymptomatic DCM is not a benign harmless condition given its transition to symptomatic HF. Without early recognition of DCM, it is not possible to stop or at least delay this transition. Early diagnosis of DCM should be carried out not only by standard echo, but also by the assessing of the longitudinal strain of the LV myocardium in terms of GLS.