4.6 Article

C-reactive protein and risk of atrial fibrillation in East Asians

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 19, Issue 10, Pages 1643-1649

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euw298

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation; C-reactive protein; Inflammation; Risk

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims Inflammation has been suggested to play a role in the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation (AF). It is uncertain whether C-reactive protein, a robust inflammatory marker, is associated with AF incidence in Asians with lower levels of C-reactive protein compared with western population. This study aimed to determine the association between C-reactive protein and risk of AF in a large population of Koreans. Methods and results A total of 402 946 Koreans were enrolled in a health screening programme from January 2002 to December 2013. Among them, 210 208 subjects were analysed during the mean follow-up of 4.59 years (1 062 513 person-years). Atrial fibrillation was identified by electrocardiography at every visits. Atrial fibrillation was identified in 561 subjects (0.1%) at baseline. The median (inter-quartile) baseline C-reactive protein levels were higher in subject with AF than in those without AF [0.9 mg/L (0.4-0.9) vs. 0.4 mg/L (0.2-1.0), P < 0.001]. Subjects in the highest quartile of C-reactive protein had more AF than those in the lowest quartile [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45-2.81; P < 0.001]. During a mean follow-up of 4.59 years, AF developed in 261 subjects (0.1%). The highest quartile of baseline C-reactive protein had a 1.68-fold (95% CI 1.06-2.67) increased risk of AF than the lowest quartile in multivariate Cox regression analysis. Conclusion Baseline C-reactive protein levels are significantly associated with the prevalence of AF and the risk of AF in Korean populations even C-reactive protein concentrations are substantially lower than reported in white populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available