4.3 Article

Copper, ceruloplasmin, and long-term cardiovascular and total mortality (The Ludwigshafen Risk and Cardiovascular Health Study)

期刊

FREE RADICAL RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 706-715

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/10715762.2014.901510

关键词

oxidative stress; coronary artery disease; mortality; copper; ceruloplasmin; inflammation

资金

  1. LURIC has received funding from the 6th Framework Program [LSHM-CT-2004- 503485]
  2. 7th Framework Program (Atheroremo) [201668]
  3. RiskyCAD of the European Union [305739]
  4. INTERREG IV Oberrhein Program [A28]
  5. Wissenschaftsoffensive TMO
  6. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Copper and its main transport protein ceruloplasmin have been suggested to promote the development of atherosclerosis. Most of the data come from experimental and animal model studies. Copper and mortality have not been simultaneously evaluated in patients undergoing coronary angiography. Methods and results. We examined whether serum copper and ceruloplasmin concentrations are associated with angiographic coronary artery disease (CAD) and mortality from all causes and cardiovascular causes in 3253 participants of the Ludwigshafen Risk and Cardiovascular Health Study. Age and sex-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for death from any cause were 2.23 (95% CI, 1.85-2.68) for copper and 2.63 (95% CI, 2.17-3.20) for ceruloplasmin when we compared the highest with the lowest quartiles. Corresponding hazard ratios (HR) for death from cardiovascular causes were 2.58 (95% CI, 2.05-3.25) and 3.02 (95% CI, 2.36-3.86), respectively. Further adjustments for various risk factors and clinical variables considerably attenuated these associations, which, however, were still statistically significant and the results remained consistent across subgroups. Conclusions. The elevated concentrations of both copper and ceruloplasmin are independently associated with increased risk of mortality from all causes and from cardiovascular causes.

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

4.3
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