4.7 Article

Cross-sectional evaluation of brachial artery flow-mediated vasodilation and C-reactive protein in healthy individuals

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 25, Issue 19, Pages 1754-1760

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ehj.2004.06.039

Keywords

atherosclerosis; C-reactive protein; endothelial function; risk factor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims The present study was designed to (a) examine the interrelationship between endothelial function and CRP in healthy individuals and (b) evaluate the relationship of each biomarker towards global Framingham risk scores. Methods and results Brachial artery flow-mediated vasodilatation (FMD), CRP, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors were measured in the Firefighters and Their Endothelium (FATE) study, which recruited 1154 mate participants (mean age 47.4 +/- 9.8 years) with no known history of cardiovascular disease. No relationship was observed between FMD and CRP (p = 0.96). FMD and the Framingham risk score tended to correlate but not significantly (p = 0.07). A lower FMD was related to a higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively) in the univariate analysis, and higher systolic blood pressure (p = 0.001) in the multivariate analysis. Elevated CRP levels independently correlated most closely with overall Framingham risk score (r = 0.36, p < 0.001) and a weaker although statistically significant relationship was seen with individual traditional cardiovascular risk factors (p < 0.005). Conclusions The current study provided evidence that brachial artery FMD had no relationship to CRP in a large cohort of healthy subjects. These observations suggest that the predictive value of CRP may be largely independent of abnormalities in endothelial function. The additive prognostic value of endothelial vasodilator testing remains to be established. (C) 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The European Society of Cardiology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available