4.7 Article

Association of C-reactive protein with carotid atherosclerosis in men and women: The Framingham Heart Study

Journal

ARTERIOSCLEROSIS THROMBOSIS AND VASCULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages 1662-1667

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000034543.78801.69

Keywords

C-reactive protein; carotid arteries; carotid stenosis; risk factors; atherosclerosis

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01-HC-25195] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between C-reactive protein (CRP) and carotid atherosclerosis. Background-Levels of CRP, a nonspecific marker of inflammation, predict risk for cardiovascular events. However, the association between CRP and direct measures of atherosclerosis is not well established. Methods and Results-Subjects (n=3173, 52% women, mean age 55) in the offspring cohort of the Framingham Heart Study received a CRP measurement and then underwent carotid ultrasonography 4 years later. Carotid stenosis ( greater than or equal to 25%) was present in 24% of men and 14% of women. Age-adjusted odds ratios for carotid stenosis were 1.62 (95%CI 1.12 to 2.36) for men and 3.90 (Cl 2.44 to 6.44) for women in the fourth quartile of CRP compared with those in the lowest quartile. After further adjustment for traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors, the odds ratio remained significant for women (2.97, Cl 1.72 to 5.25) but not for men. Similarly, after multivariable adjustment, women in the fourth CRP quartile had a higher mean internal carotid intima-media thickness than those in the lowest CRP quartile (P less than or equal to 0.001). There was no association between common carotid intima-media thickness and CRP. Conclusions-There is a graded association between CRP and carotid atherosclerosis in women but not in men. The significance of this difference between sexes merits further investigation.

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