4.4 Article

Relation of stiffness parameter β to carotid arteriosclerosis and silent cerebral infarction in patients on chronic hemodialysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 739-745

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-009-9526-0

关键词

Stiffness parameter beta; Intima-media thickness; Plaque score; Silent cerebral infarction; Hemodialysis; End-stage renal disease

资金

  1. Japan Research Promotion Society for Cardiovascular Diseases and Educational Institute for Integrated Medical Sciences (IREIIMS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aortic stiffness measured by pulse wave velocity (PWV) predicts all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients. However, there is a lack of information on stiffness parameter beta, another index of arterial stiffness, in HD patients. The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical usefulness of stiffness parameter beta in HD patients. We compared the relation of stiffness parameter beta to carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and plaque score estimated by carotid ultrasound and investigated the relationship between stiffness parameter beta and silent cerebral infarction (SCI) in 64 HD patients. Stiffness parameter beta was positively correlated with mean IMT (r = 0.318, P = 0.0113) and plaque score (r = 0.672, P < 0.0001). Stepwise regression analysis revealed that pulse pressure and age were found to be independent determinants of stiffness parameter beta (partial correlation coefficients: beta = 0.501 and P < 0.0001 for pulse pressure, beta = 0.488 and P < 0.0001 for age). In addition, stiffness parameter beta in patients with SCI (12.2 +/- A 3.9) was significantly higher than those (8.0 +/- A 2.4) in patients without SCI. However, there was no significant difference in mean IMT and plaque score in both groups. These results suggest that arteriosclerosis assessed by stiffness parameter beta is associated with atherosclerotic changes of carotid arteries and with the presence of SCI in HD patients.

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

4.4
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