4.4 Review

Lack of echocardiographic and Doppler abnormalities in psoriatic arthritis patients without clinically evident cardiovascular disease or classic atherosclerosis risk factors

Journal

SEMINARS IN ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 333-339

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2005.12.002

Keywords

psoriatic arthritis; cardiovascular disease; echocardiographic and Doppler findings; classic atherosclerosis risk factors

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To assess the prevalence of echocardiographic and Doppler abnormalities in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients without clinically evident cardiovascular manifestations or classic atherosclerosis risk factors. METHODS Fifty PsA patients were recruited from Hospital Xeral-Calde, Lugo, Spain. Patients seen during the period of recruitment that had classic cardiovascular risk factors or had suffered cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events were excluded. Fifty healthy matched controls were also studied. Echocardiographic and Doppler studies were performed in all cases and controls. RESULTS In PsA patients the frequency of aortic and tricuspid (10%) and mitral regurgitation (16%) was not different from that seen in matched controls (10, 4, and 12%). Also, the pulmonary artery systolic pressure was normal in the group of PsA patients (23.4 +/- 3.9 mm Hg). The prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, in all cases due to impaired relaxation, was similar in PsA patients (28%) and controls (24%) (P = 0.65). In addition, no significant echocardiographic and Doppler differences were observed when PsA patients with polyarticular pattern were compared with the remaining PsA patients. CONCLUSIONS The present study shows that actively treated PsA patients without cardiovascular risk factors or clinically evident cardiovascular disease do not exhibit silent subclinical echocardiographic abnormalities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available