Back
For best output, select "Paper Size" as "A4" and "Margin" as "0" or "None".
To save or print to PDF, please select Print Destination > Save as PDF, enable Background Graphics under "More Settings", then click "Save".
During the congress, E-Posters will be accessible to all participants on the congress website 24/7, as well as in the E-poster stations in the congress center.
Preparing your E-Poster
Please review the E-Poster format requirements carefully when preparing your E-Poster. Should your E-Poster not meet the mentioned requirements, it may not be displayed as described above.
E-Poster Submission Deadline
Please prepare and upload your E-Poster no later than March 14, 2026 11.59PM CET. After this date, you will no longer be able to prepare and upload your E-poster and it will not be displayed and accessible on the congress website.
Please follow the instructions below to input your abstract title.
Abstract titles should be brief and reflect the content of the abstract.
Diabetes is a vital cause of kidney damage, myocardial ischemia, cerebro-vascular accident, retinal damage and limb injuries due to its microvascular and macrovascular problems that affect organs like the retina, kidney, nerve, and cardiovascular system. Because of their extensive connective tissue and pulmonary capillary network, the lungs may be impacted by chronic hyperglycemia even though they are not a typical organ involved in diabetes. Persistent hyperglycemia and changes in the degradation of proteins, glucose, starch, and fatty foods. Reduced tissue sensitivity to insulin, insufficient insulin production, or a combination of the two causes certain metabolic disorders. Type 2 diabetes mellitus can cause permanent damage, dysfunction, or failure to many organs, and its consequences are usually caused by microvascular and macrovascular damage. The target organs of diabetic complications have a similar microangiopathic origin, i.e lung parenchyma, retina, nephron and nerves. As we already known that cardiovascular problems, nephropathy, diabetic retinopathy, and neuropathy receive a lot of attention, yet, lung damage till now received little attention. The idea that the lung could be a target organ for diabetic microangiopathy has recently gained a lot of interest. This investigation aims to identify pulmonary function anomalies in Diabetic nephropathy patients. The idea that the lung could also be a "target organ" in diabetic patients is increased by the lung's extensive connective tissue and microvascular circulation. Diabetics' lungs experience several histological alterations as a result of chronic hyperglycemia. Alveolar epithelium thickening and pulmonary capillary basal lamina thickening are examples of this. These modifications ultimately lead to a decrease in lung volume and elastic recoiling capacity. The change of connective tissue caused by non-enzymatic glycosylation in the lung parenchyma is most likely the cause. This study aims to broadcast as to how chronic hyperglycemia effects lung functions, mainly centering on mechanical aspects of lung dysfunction – calculating modalities like Forced Vital Capacity (FVC), Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and the ratio between FEV1 & FVC to be specific. Early assessment and primordial prevention goes a long way in the management of Diabetic nephropathy, hence the need for pulmonary function tests in patients with Diabetic Nephropathy.
A single-center cross-sectional study enrolling patients admitted with diabetes mellitus at R.L Jalappa Hospital, Tamaka, Kolar, the only tertiary care referral center in the district was done during the period of 1 and a half year - between May 2023 to October 2024. Among all adults, patients above the age of 18, screened for and diagnosed as Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 were included in the study, with and without diabetic nephropathy. Patient with Nephropathy through other causes like Glomerulopathies, Obstructive uropathy, Renal Macrovascular Disease, Chronic Tubulointerstitial nephropathies, Obesity related nephropathy were excluded from the study. The sample size was 100. This study was done after obtaining ethical clearance from the institutional ethical committee as well as consents from the Individuals / study subjects. 50 individuals in each group fulfilling inclusion & exclusion criteria were included. Detailed and thorough history was recorded and examination was done. The patient underwent all the necessary investigations. All patients admitted with Type 2 DM coming to Department of Medicine OPD was taken into study and estimating the prevalence of patients with Nephropathy. Pulmonary Function Test was assessed in Diabetic Nephropathy Patients and then compared in patients with & without nephropathy.
Table 1. HbA1c in the study groups
HbA1c (%)
With diabetic nephropathy
Without diabetic nephropathy
T value
P value, Sig
Mean ± SD
7.5 ± 1.1
7.7 ± 1.2
0.597
0.552, NS
As depicted in Table 1, mean HbA1c in cases with diabetic nephropathy was 7.5 gms% and 7.7 gms% in cases without diabetic nephropathy. Statistically, this difference was not significant among the two above mentioned study groups.
Table 2. Renal function in the study groups
Renal function tests
(Mean ± SD)
Serum creatinine
2.44 ± 0.62
1.23 ± 0.6
10.129
0.000, Sig
Blood Urea nitrogen
48.1 ± 28.8
32.4 ± 12.1
3.553
0.001, Sig
As depicted in Table 2, the mean value of creatinine in diabetic nephropathy cases group was 3.44 mg/dl and 1.23 mg/dl in cases without diabetic nephropathy. Statistically, this difference was significant among the two study groups.
Table 3. FEV1 in the study groups
FEV1
1.6 ± 0.51
1.8 ± 0.55
2.164
0.033, Sig
As depicted in Table 3, FEV1 was 1.6 litres in cases with diabetic nephropathy and 1.8 litres in cases without diabetic nephropathy. Statistically, this difference was significant among the two study groups.
Table 4. FVC in the study groups
FVC
3.6 ± 1.53
3.02 ± 0.92
2.332
As depicted in Table 4, Mean FVC was 3.6 litres in cases with diabetic nephropathy and 3.02 litres in cases without diabetic nephropathy. This difference was a statistically significant between the two groups.
Table 5. PEFR in the study groups
PEFR
216.3 ± 44.81
198.78 ± 47.74
1.894
0.061, NS
As depicted in Table 5, PEFR in cases with diabetic nephropathy was 216.3 and 198.78 in cases without diabetic nephropathy. This difference was not statistically significant between the two groups.
Table 6. FEV1/FVC ratio in the study groups
FEV1/ FVC
0.50 ± 0.15
0.56 ± 0.11
2.271
0.025, Sig
As depicted in Table 6, Mean FEV1/FVC ratio in cases with diabetic nephropathy was 0.50 and 0.56 in cases without diabetic nephropathy. This difference was statistically significant between the two groups.
In our single center study, Mean FEV1/FVC ratio in cases with diabetic nephropathy was 0.50 and 0.56 in cases without diabetic nephropathy. This study showed that, the FEV1, FEV1/FVC were low in diabetic nephropathy cases when compared with diabetic cases without nephropathy. This study shows that patients with diabetic nephropathy have a more restrictive pattern of PFT than compared to those without nephropathy. This paves a way to dive deeper into the use of early PFT as a vital role in diagnosing the diabetic nephropathy patients to provide better care in progression.
