4.6 Article

Risk of Ischaemic Heart Disease in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Cohort Study Using the General Practice Research Database

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139745

关键词

-

资金

  1. Northern and Yorkshire Research Network [108]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) demonstrate an inflammatory response which bears some similarities to that seen in ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The nature of the association of IBD with IHD is uncertain. We aimed to define the extent and direction of that association. Design This retrospective cohort study examined records from patients aged >= 15 years with IBD from 1987-2009 (n = 19163) who were age and gender matched with patients without IBD (n = 75735) using the General Practice Research Database. The primary outcome was the hazard ratio for IHD. Results A higher proportion of IBD patients had a recorded diagnosis of IHD ever, 2220 (11.6%) compared with 6504 (8.6%) of controls. However, the majority (4494, 51.5%) developed IHD prior to IBD diagnosis (1404 (63.2%) of IBD cases and 3090 (47.5%) of controls). There was increased IHD incidence in the first year after IBD diagnosis. Mean age at IHD diagnosis was statistically similar across all IBD groups apart from for those with Ulcerative Colitis (UC) who were slightly younger at diagnosis of angina compared to controls (64.5y vs. 67.0y, p = 0.008) and coronary heart disease (65.7y vs. 67.9y, p = 0.015). Of those developing IHD following IBD diagnosis, UC patients were at higher risk of IHD (unadjusted HR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.5), p<0.001) or MI (unadjusted HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), p = 0.004). Conclusion Although IHD prevalence was higher in IBD patients, most IHD diagnoses predated the diagnosis of IBD. This implies a more complex relationship than previously proposed between the inflammatory responses associated with IHD and IBD, and alternative models should be considered.

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