4.3 Article

Peripheral arterial disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective controlled study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 319-324

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1756-185x.12025

关键词

peripheral arterial disease; systemic lupus erythematosus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimThe aim of our study was to: (i) map out the presence of peripheral vascular disease in a sample of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients; and (ii) correlate our findings with disease characteristics, activity indices, traditional risk factors of atherosclerosis and thrombotic variables. MethodsThe study population comprised 120 SLE patients and 100 controls. Clinical data were collected for patients and controls with stress on clinical issues of SLE patients, including British Isles Lupus Assessment Group index score, anti-double stranded DNA titer C3 and C4 levels, and treatment taken, mainly steroids. Measurements of thrombotic variables were performed. Non-invasive arterial assessment was performed, including carotid duplex scanning and measurement of carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) and peripheral arterial assessment and measurement of ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI). ResultsThe mean age of SLE patients was 32years and mean disease duration was 8years. There were no statistically significant differences in the traditional vascular risk factors measured between SLE patients and controls. There were significantly higher plasma levels of thrombotic variables in SLE patients. The average IMT was statistically significantly greater in SLE patients compared to controls. Thirty SLE patients (25%) had an ABPI <1.0 compared with six controls (6%), which was statistically significant. ConclusionThis study showed an increased prevalence of peripheral arterial disease in SLE patients as shown by the higher carotid artery IMT and lower ABPI in such patients compared with controls. Multiple risk factors are likely to be involved in such findings.

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

4.3
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