4.7 Article

Prevalence of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular risk factors in a national cross-sectional cohort study of systemic sclerosis

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 71, 期 12, 页码 1980-1983

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-201176

关键词

-

资金

  1. Scleroderma Australia
  2. Actelion
  3. Bayer
  4. CSL
  5. GSK
  6. Pfizer
  7. NHMRC [1023407]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine the prevalence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular risk factors in a well-characterised cohort of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients, and to compare this with the general population. Methods A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of CHD and cardiovascular risk factors in participants in the Australian Scleroderma Cohort Study was performed. Controls were drawn from the 2007-8 National Health Survey (NHS) and the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). OR and 95% CI were calculated to determine the prevalence of CHD and cardiovascular risk factors in SSc patients compared with controls. Results Data were available for 850 SSc patients (86% female), 15 787 NHS participants (53% female) and 8802 AusDiab participants (56% female). Adjusted for age and gender, the OR of CHD in SSc patients was 1.9 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.4) compared with controls from AusDiab and 2.0 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.5) compared with controls from the NHS. The OR of CHD increased to 3.2 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.5) for SSc patients compared with controls from AusDiab after further adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors. Hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes mellitus and obesity were significantly less prevalent in the SSc cohort than in AusDiab. Within the SSc cohort, the presence of pulmonary arterial hypertension was associated with CHD. Conclusions This is the first report of an increased prevalence of CHD in SSc patients. Further studies are required to determine the relative contribution of scleroderma-specific factors such as microvascular disease to the development of CHD.

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

4.7
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