4.6 Article

Cholesteryl ester transfer protein in patients with coronary heart disease

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 40, 期 7, 页码 616-622

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02313.x

关键词

Atherosclerosis; coronary heart disease; lipoproteins; mortality; risk factors

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01GD90820/0]
  2. Pitzer Foundation (Bad Nauheim, Germany)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background The impact of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) in the development of atherosclerosis is a matter for ongoing debate. In this study, we analyse associations of CETP with cardiovascular endpoints in a cohort of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Design KAROLA is a prospective observational study of patients with CAD and a median follow-up of 8 years (n = 1132). CETP levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results Cholesteryl ester transfer protein levels were lower in men (P = 0 center dot 0016), positively correlated to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and inversely correlated to triglyceride levels (P < 0 center dot 0001 and P = 0 center dot 011 respectively). There was no significant difference in mortality between patients in different CETP quartiles; the hazard ratio of lowest vs. highest quartile was 1 center dot 33 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0 center dot 77-2 center dot 30) for mortality and 1 center dot 24 (95% CI: 0 center dot 75-2 center dot 03) for secondary events. In post hoc analyses, comparing nondiabetic subjects with CETP below vs. above median, the adjusted hazard ratio for death in patients with low CETP levels was 1 center dot 84 (95% CI: 1 center dot 10-3 center dot 09). Conclusion Although statistically significant associations were found only in post hoc analyses, the effect sizes in this study were in line with previous findings in the Framingham and LURIC population. In combination, the emerging evidence challenges the concept of pharmacological CETP inhibition.

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