4.6 Article

Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration and Angiography-Defined Coronary Artery Stenosis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043378

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Exeter
  2. Peninsula Clinical Research facility
  3. British Heart Foundation [PG/09/097]
  4. British Heart Foundation [PG/09/097/28118] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bisphenol A is widely used in food and drinks packaging. There is evidence of associations between raised urinary bisphenol A (uBPA) and increased incidence of reported cardiovascular diagnoses. Methodology/Principal Findings: To estimate associations between BPA exposure and angiographically graded coronary atherosclerosis. 591 patients participating in The Metabonomics and Genomics in Coronary Artery Disease (MaGiCAD) study in Cambridgeshire UK, comparing urinary BPA (uBPA) with grades of severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) on angiography. Linear models were adjusted for BMI, occupational social class and diabetes status. Severe (one to three vessel) CAD was present in 385 patients, 86 had intermediate disease (n = 86) and 120 had normal coronary arteries. The (unadjusted) median uBPA concentration was 1.28 ng/mL with normal coronary arteries, and 1.53 ng/mL with severe CAD. Compared to those with normal coronary arteries, uBPA concentration was significantly higher in those with severe CAD (OR per uBPA SD = 5.96 ng/ml OR = 1.43, CI 1.03 to 1.98, p = 0.033), and near significant for intermediate disease (OR = 1.69, CI 0.98 to 2.94, p = 0.061). There was no significant uBPA difference between patients with severe CAD (needing surgery) and the remaining groups combined. Conclusions/Significance: BPA exposure was higher in those with severe coronary artery stenoses compared to those with no vessel disease. Larger studies are needed to estimate true dose response relationships. The mechanisms underlying the association remain to be established.

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