4.6 Article

Association of Coronary Artery and Aortic Calcium With Lumbar Bone Density

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 169, Issue 2, Pages 186-194

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn303

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01-HC-95164, N01-HC-95160, N01HC95159, R01 HL72403, N01HC95165, N01HC95169, N01-HC-95169, N01-HC-95165, N01-HC-95161, R01 HL074338, R01 HL074406, R01 HL072403, N01-HC-95162, N01-HC-95159, N01-HC-95163] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atherosclerosis and osteoporosis share many risk factors, but their independent association is unclear. The authors investigated the independent associations between volumetric trabecular bone mineral density (vBMD) of the lumbar spine and coronary artery calcium (CAC) and abdominal aortic calcium (AAC). During 2002-2005, they used quantitative computed tomography to assess vBMD and the presence and extent of CAC and AAC among 946 women (mean age = 65.5 years) and 963 men (mean age = 64.1 years) in a substudy of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Prevalences of CAC were 47% and 68% in women and men, respectively, and AAC prevalences were 70% and 73%. Sequential, sex-specific regression models included adjustment for age, ethnicity, body mass index, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, homocysteine, and sex hormones. After full adjustment, lower vBMD was associated with greater CAC score among women (P < 0.002) and greater AAC score among women (P = 0.004) and men (P < 0.001). After adjustment, vBMD quartile was inversely associated with CAC prevalence (P-trend = 0.05) in women and AAC prevalence (P-trend < 0.01) in men. Partially and fully adjusted models showed similar results. Though modest, these significant, independent associations suggest that atherosclerosis and bone loss may be related.

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