4.5 Article

Mortality risk of triglyceride levels in patients with coronary artery disease

期刊

HEART
卷 99, 期 1, 页码 22-29

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302689

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The association between triglyceride level and the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) remains controversial. In particular, the prognostic significance of triglyceride levels in established CAD is unclear. We aimed to assess the relationship between triglyceride levels and long-term (> 10 years) prognosis in a cohort of patients after complete coronary revascularisation. Design Observational cohort study. Setting Departments of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery in a university hospital. Patients Consecutive patients who had undergone complete revascularisation between 1984 and 1992. All patients were categorised according to the quintiles of fasting triglyceride levels at baseline. Main outcome measures The risk of fasting triglyceride levels for all-cause and cardiac mortality was assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Results Data from 1836 eligible patients were assessed. There were 412 (22.4%) all-cause deaths and 131 (7.2%) cardiac deaths during a median follow-up of 10.5 years. Multivariable analyses including total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and other covariates revealed no significant differences in linear trends for all-cause mortality according to the quintiles of triglyceride (p for trend=0.711). However, the HR increased with the triglyceride levels in a significant and dose-dependent manner for cardiac mortality (p for trend=0.031). Multivariable analysis therefore showed a significant relationship between triglyceride levels, when treated as a natural logarithm-transformed continuous variable, and increased cardiac mortality (HR 1.51, p=0.044). Conclusions Elevated fasting triglyceride level is associated with increased risk of cardiac death after complete coronary revascularisation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据