4.4 Article

High levels of serum lactate dehydrogenase correlate with the severity and mortality of idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 2109-2113

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2015.2376

关键词

serum lactate dehydrogenase; idiopathic pulmonary hypertension; mortality

资金

  1. National Key Technology R&D Program, China [2011BAI11B15]
  2. Capital Medical Scientific Development Fund, Beijing, China [2009-1003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liver dysfunction reflects the status of heart failure, and previous studies have demonstrated that serum lactate dehydrogenase (S-LDH) levels are increased in patients exhibiting heart failure and liver dysfunction. Right heart failure is a main characteristic of idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH). The aim of the present study was to assess the prognostic significance of S-LDH levels in patients with IPAH. S-LDH levels were determined in 173 patients with IPAH, and these patients were subclassified into two groups according to a defined upper reference limit of S-LDH (250 IU/l). Right heart catheterization was performed in all patients. A total of 53 patients were found to have elevated S-LDH to >= 250 IU/l. In a mean follow-up period of 31.2+/-17.9 months, 57 patients succumbed. In the group with lower S-LDH levels (S-LDH <250 IU/l), 16.7% of the patients succumbed, compared with 69.8% of patients in the group with higher S-LDH levels (S-LDH >= 250 IU/l. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated that patients with higher S-LDH levels had a significantly lower survival rate than did those with lower S-LDH levels (log-rank test, P<0.001). Cox proportional hazard analyses identified reduced body mass index, reduced cardiac index, elevated World Health Organization functional class, higher S-LDH and an absence of PAH-targeted therapy as significant predictors of adverse outcomes. In conclusion, elevated S-LDH is a risk factor for mortality in patients with IPAH.

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