4.6 Article

Kidney Stones and Subclinical Atherosclerosis in Young Adults: The CARDIA Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 185, 期 3, 页码 920-925

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.086

关键词

urolithiasis; atherosclerosis

资金

  1. CARDIA [N01-HC-48047 - N01-HC-48050, N01-HC-95095]
  2. CARDIA Ultrasound Reading Center [HHSN268200425204C]
  3. CARDIA Computed Tomography Reading Center [N01-HC-05187, HHSN268200425205C]
  4. Boston Scientific Corporation
  5. PercSys
  6. Ravine Group

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Recent reports suggest that nephrolithiasis and atherosclerosis share a number of risk factors. To our knowledge there has been no previous examination of the relationship between kidney stones and subclinical atherosclerotic disease. We studied the relationship between nephrolithiasis, and carotid wall thickness and carotid stenosis assessed by B-mode ultrasound in the general community using data from the CARDIA study. Materials and Methods: The CARDIA study is a United States, population based, observational study of 5,115 white and African-American men and women between the ages of 18 and 30 years at recruitment in 1985 to 1986. Results: By the year 20 examination 200 (3.9%) CARDIA participants had reported ever having kidney stones. Symptomatic kidney stones were associated with greater carotid wall thickness measured at the year 20 examination, particularly of the internal carotid/bulb region. Using a composite dichotomous end point of carotid stenosis and/or the upper quartile of internal carotid/bulb wall thickness, the association of kidney stones with carotid atherosclerosis was significant (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3, p = 0.01), even after adjusting for major atherosclerotic risk factors. Conclusions: The association between a history of kidney stones and subclinical carotid atherosclerosis in young adults adds further support to the notion that nephrolithiasis and atherosclerosis share common systemic risk factors and/or pathophysiology.

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

4.6
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