4.3 Article

Association between Helicobacter pylori Seropositivity and the Coronary Artery Calcium Score in a Screening Population

Journal

GUT AND LIVER
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 321-327

Publisher

EDITORIAL OFFICE GUT & LIVER
DOI: 10.5009/gnl.2011.5.3.321

Keywords

Helicobacter pylori; Seropositivity; Coronary atherosclerosis; Screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: Helicobacter pylori causes numerous extragastric manifestations, including coronary heart disease. The coronary artery calcification (CAC) score, measured using computed tomography (CT) has been used as a screening test for coronary atherosclerosis. This study investigated the association between H. pylori seropositivity and CAC scores in a screening population. Methods: Patients who underwent a health checkup between October 2003 and July 2007 and who did not have a history of ischemic heart disease were enrolled in the study. Subjects were screened with a multi-detector CT scan to determine the CAC score and for anti-H. pylori antibody immunoglobulin G; traditional risks for coronary heart disease were evaluated using a structured questionnaire, anthropometric measurements, and laboratory tests. Results: Of the 2,029 subjects enrolled (1,295 males), 1,214 (59.8%) subjects were H. pylori positive and 815 were H. pylori negative. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the seropositive and seronegative patients. When the CAC presence or absence scores were considered, multivariate analysis revealed that H. pylori seropositivity was statistically associated with the presence of CAC and that this association was stronger in the mild CAC score category. Conclusions: H. pylori seropositive patients are at a higher risk for coronary atherosclerosis regardless of traditional cardiovascular risk factors. This association is particularly applicable for early coronary atherosclerosis. (Gut Liver 201145:321-327)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available