4.5 Review

Should Screening for Colorectal Neoplasm Be Recommended in Patients at High Risk for Coronary Heart Disease A Cross-Sectional Study

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 94, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000793

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colorectal neoplasm (CRN) and coronary heart disease (CHD) share common risk factors. We aimed to assess the risk for CRN in patients who are at high risk for developing CHD determined by measurements, which are independent from the risk factors for CRN. This study was conducted on individuals who underwent total colonoscopic examination and were without history of CHD. Two-hundred thirty-five subjects (82 with CRN and 153 with normal colonoscopic findings) participated in the study. Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) was defined as the presence of adenocarcinoma. We measured carotid intima media thickness (CIMT), flow-mediated dilation (FMD), and calculated Framingham risk score (FRS) for all participants. An increased CIMT (>= 1.0mm), a decreased FMD (<10%), and a high FRS (>20%) were defined as high risks for developing CHD. The risk and the prevalence of CRN were analyzed in relation to the risk for developing CHD. The ratio of the patients with overall-CRN and CRC was significantly higher in individuals who are at high risk for developing CHD compared with individuals who are at low risk for developing CHD by each 3 risk estimation method (P<0.05 for all). An increased CIMT, a decreased FMD, and a high FRS score were significantly associated with the high risk for the presence of CRC (odds ratio [OR]: 6.018, OR: 3.699, and OR: 4.120, respectively). An increased CIMT, a decreased FMD, and an intermediate FRS were significantly associated with the risk for the presence of overall-CRN (OR: 3.607, OR: 1.866 and OR: 2.889, respectively). The risk for CRN increases as the risk for developing CHD increases. It can be suggested that screening for CRN can be recommended for individuals who are at high risk for developing CHD.

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

4.5
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