4.3 Article

Women and peripheral arterial disease: same disease, different issues

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 382-388

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0b013e3282f03b90

关键词

critical limb ischemia; gender; intermittent claudication; peripheral arterial disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Atherosclerosis is a multifactorial disease and, thus, its clinical manifestations are likely to present gender-specific differences with respect to their development, course, symptom complexes and prognosis. The present study aimed to examine sex differences in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and its clinical correlates. Methods PAD severity, quality of life (assessed by ST-22), cardiovascular risk factors, inflammatory profile and comorbidity were assessed in 163 men and 68 women who were consecutively diagnosed with PAD at three Italian University vascular centres. Results Compared to men, women showed a higher prevalence of critical limb ischemia (P = 0.018), but had a less impaired quality of life (assessed by ST-22), and were less likely to have a history of lower extremity revascularization. Furthermore, women tended to be older (P = 0.058), and more likely to present hypercholesterolemia (P = 0.053), diabetes mellitus (P = 0.001), body mass index >= 30 kg/m(2) (P = 0.003) and metabolic syndrome (P = 0.001). Conversely, C-reactive protein plasma levels were similar in the two groups. No gender-specific difference was observed in cardiovascular comorbidity; however, the condition showing the strongest association with coronary artery disease was diabetes mellitus in women (odds ratio = 4.96, P = 0.021), and smoking in men (odds ratio = 2.66, P = 0.008). Conclusion In PAD, there are several sex differences in baseline characteristics, especially with respect to the weight and significance of cardiovascular risk factors. Knowledge of these differences may help achieve optimal gender-specific cardiovascular risk prevention.

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