4.6 Article

Cardiovascular and metabolic characteristics of infertile Chinese women with PCOS diagnosed according to the Rotterdam consensus criteria

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 572-580

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.04.032

关键词

ethnicity; infertility; insulin resistance; metabolic syndrome; polycystic ovary syndrome

资金

  1. Andromed
  2. Ardana
  3. Ferring
  4. Genovum
  5. Merck Serono
  6. Organon
  7. Pantharei Bioscience
  8. PregLem
  9. Schering
  10. Schering Plough
  11. Serono
  12. Wyeth
  13. Bayer Schering
  14. IBSA criteria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is strongly associated with metabolic abnormalities in Western women. However, data from other populations and geographical regions are scarce. This study evaluated cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors in Chinese infertile women diagnosed with PCOS using the 2003 Rotterdam consensus criteria. A total of 615 women representing the four PCOS phenotypes (oligo- or anovulation (AO) + hyperandrogenism (HA) + polycystic ovaries (PCO), AO + HA, AO + PCO and HA + PCO) underwent standardized metabolic screening including a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test. All groups presented with similar reproductive characteristics, with the only difference being a significantly higher Ferriman-Gallwey score for hirsutism (P = 0.01) in the subgroup characterized by HA + PCO. Overall, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 6.4%, with no difference among the four groups (range of 2.3-12.2%). Metabolic syndrome was associated with body mass index (P < 0.001), waist/hip ratio (P = 0.002), index of insulin resistance (P = 0.005) and fasting insulin (P = 0.009) in multivariate analysis. Compared with Caucasians and Chinese women in Westernized societies, mainland Chinese women with PCOS have a low risk of metabolic syndrome and its presence does not vary across the specific PCOS phenotypes. (C) 2010, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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