4.5 Article

Soluble receptor of advanced glycation end products levels are related to ischaemic aetiology and extent of coronary disease in chronic heart failure patients, independent of advanced glycation end products levels New Roles for Soluble RAGE

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 1092-1100

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfq117

关键词

Advanced glycation end products (AGE); (soluble) AGE receptor [(s)RAGE]; Chronic heart failure; Coronary artery disease

资金

  1. Spanish Government [REDINSCOR RD06/0003/0008]
  2. Xunta de Galicia (Spain)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge of the role of advanced glycation end products (AGE), their receptor (RAGE), and the receptor's soluble form (sRAGE), in heart failure (HF) is very limited. We evaluated the clinical role of the AGE-RAGE system in HF and in particular any association it might have with ischaemic aetiology. We measured fluorescent AGE, glycated albumin and sRAGE in 103 patients with chronic HF. We showed that sRAGE but not AGE was related to ischaemic aetiology (1638.3 +/- 207.4 ischaemic vs. 1065.1 +/- 94.2 pg/mL non-ischaemic group; P =0.016) independent of age, sex, diabetes, renal function, clinical severity, or other variables (OR: 1.091; 95% CI (confidence interval): 1.032-1.153; P =0.007). Moreover, sRAGE was directly associated with extent of coronary disease (OR for three vessel disease compared with non-coronary lesions: 1.186; 95% CI: 1.065-1.322; P =0.002). We also found a correlation between sRAGE and severity of HF, which increased with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (741.9 +/- 88.9 pg/mL in class 1, 1195.9 +/- 113.2 pg/mL in class II, and 1724.8 +/- 245.7 pg/mL in class III (P < 0.05)) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels (667.4 +/- 68.0 vs. 1344.5 +/- 126.0 pg/mL for BNP < and >= 400 pg/mL, respectively). sRAGE is an indicator of chronic heart failure severity and an independent marker of coronary artery disease and its severity in patients with CHF.

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