4.0 Article

Serum Retinol and β-carotene Levels and Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease in Morbid Obesity

出版社

VERLAG HANS HUBER
DOI: 10.1024/0300-9831/a000018

关键词

cardiovascular diseases; morbid obesity; risk factors; vitamin A

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate retinol and beta-carotene serum levels and their relationship with risk factors for cardiovascular disease in individuals with morbid obesity, resident in Rio de Janeiro. Methodology: Blood serum concentrations of retinol and beta-carotene of 189 morbidly obese individuals were assessed. The metabolic syndrome was identified according to the criteria of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) and World Health Organization (WHO). Lipid profile, insulin resistance, basal insulin, glycemia, blood pressure, and anthropometry and their correlation with retinol and beta-carotene serum levels were evaluated. Results: Metabolic syndrome diagnosis was observed in 49.0% of the sample. Within this percentage the levels of beta-carotene were significantly lower when body mass index increased. Serum retinol didn't show this behavior. Serum retinol inadequacy in patients with metabolic syndrome (61.3%), according to WHO criterion, was higher (15.8%) than when the whole sample was considered (12.7%). When metabolic syndrome was diagnosed by NCEP criterion, beta-carotene inadequacy was higher (42.8%) when compared to the total sample (37.5%). There was a significant difference between average beta-carotene values of patients with and without metabolic syndrome (p=0.048) according to the classification of the NCEP. Lower values were found in patients with metabolic syndrome. Conclusion: Considering the vitamin A contribution in antioxidant protection, especially when risk factors for cardiovascular disease are present, it is suggested that great attention be given to morbidly obese. This could aid in prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, which affects a significant part of the population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据