4.6 Article

Cardiac calcification by transthoracic echocardiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 142, 期 3, 页码 288-295

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2009.01.021

关键词

Calcification; Echocardiography; Framingham risk score; Coronary artery disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To estimate the correlation between the total heart calcification score index (CSI), assessed by echocardiography, left ventricle mass index (LVMI), Framingham risk score (FRS), and angiographically assessed coronary artery disease (CAD). Background: Aortic valve and root sclerosis (AVS, ARS) and mitral annular calcium (MAC) detected by echocardiography have been associated with atherosclerosis. FRS is recommended for estimation of total coronary heart disease risk over the course of 10 years. The anatomic extent of CAD can be assessed with coronary angiography. Total and cardiovascular mortality risk increases with increasing LVMI. Methods: 167 consecutive in-hospital patients (mean age 66.6 +/- 9.7 yrs, 119 men) underwent: 1) complete transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), with CSI assessment (from 0=normal to 10=diffuse calcification of aortic valve, mitral annulus and aortic root), 2) the FRS evaluation (FRS <= 10=low, FRS >= 11 and <= 20=average risk, and a FRS <= 21=high risk), and 3) coronary angiography (with Duke score evaluation, from 0=normal to 100=severe left main disease). Results: The mean CSI of the entire population was 3.94 +/- 2.1, with a mean of 2.75 +/- 2 in patients at low risk, with a progressive increase in patients at average risk (4.11 +/- 2.2), at high risk (4.7 +/- 1.7), respectively. CSI was associated with the presence of CAD (p=0.003) and the presence of abnormal LVMI (p=0.002). Conclusions: Echocardiographically assessed CSI is correlated to FRS, Duke score and LVMI and can provide a simple, radiation-free index of cardiovascular risk. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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