4.4 Article

Risk assessment of acute vascular events in congenital disorder of glycosylation type Ia

期刊

MOLECULAR GENETICS AND METABOLISM
卷 93, 期 4, 页码 444-449

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2007.11.006

关键词

congenital disorder of glycosylation type Ia (CDG-Ia); hemostasis; stroke; stroke-like

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The congenital disorder of glycosylation type la (CDG-Ia) presents a broad clinical spectrum. Some patients suffer from acute vascular events (thrombosis and bleeding) and stroke-like events. No correlations have been made between the marked hemostasis abnormalities of CDG-Ia and the occurrence of acute vascular events. We report on 6 patients with CDG-Ia presenting vascular events, then we analyze the clinical and hemostasis data of 39 CDG-Ia patients described in the literature, 17 with vascular events (E) and 21 unscathed from any event (EF), to determine the risk factors for acute vascular events in CDG-Ia. Acute vascular events occurred in patients younger than 15 years, especially with fever and prolonged immobilization. Hemostasis and liver cytolysis were statistically abnormal in patients younger than 5 years whatever the occurrence of vascular events and they normalized with time. Higher factors VIII and IX activities were statistically observed in the E cluster (p = 0.03) compared to the EF cluster. The activity/antigenicity ratio for protein C (p = 0.02) was also higher in the E group. CDG-Ia patients younger than 15 years old are at risk of acute vascular events. The paradoxical results-abnormal VIII and IX factors in EF patients and normal results in E patients, while XI, antithrombin, protein C, ASAT and ALAT are abnormal in both groups, could suggest a disequilibrium between prothrombotic and antithrombotic factors in the E group. Vascular events may also occur in patients where glycoproteins are proportionally more hypoglycosylated, particularly protein C. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
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