4.7 Article

Association between endothelial dysfunction and hyperuricaemia

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 49, 期 10, 页码 1929-1934

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq184

关键词

Hyperuricaemia; Endothelial dysfunction; Flow-mediated vasodilation; High-resolution ultrasound

资金

  1. Chang Gung Research Grant Foundation [CMRP G370921]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. We used high-resolution peripheral vascular ultrasound imaging to assess endothelial function in hyperuricaemic patients. Methods. Hyperuricaemia was defined as a serum uric acid concentration of > 7.7 mg/dl in men or > 6.6 mg/dl in women. Measurements of endothelium-dependent flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) and endothelium-independent nitroglycerin-mediated vasodilation were performed in 46 hyperuricaemic patients and an equal number of healthy age- and gender-matched normal controls by high-resolution two-dimensional ultrasonographic imaging of the brachial artery. The serum levels of glucose, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), lipid profiles and high-sensitivity CRP were measured for both the study groups. Results. The serum uric acid levels averaged 9.24 (1.16) and 6.18 (0.99) mg/dl in the hyperuricaemic and control groups, respectively. Body weight and BMI were significantly higher in the hyperuricaemic group than in the control group. The serum levels of creatinine, ALT, triglyceride and high-sensitivity CRP were significantly different between the two groups. The FMD values were significantly lower in the hyperuricaemic patients than in the controls [4.45% (3.13%) vs 7.10% (2.48%); P < 0.001]. The FMD values were negatively associated with serum uric acid levels (r = -0.273; P = 0.009). Multivariate regression analysis showed that the presence of hyperuricaemia (beta = -0.384; P < 0.001) and body weight (beta = 0.215; P = 0.017) were independent determinants of low FMD values. Conclusion. Hyperuricaemia is associated with endothelial dysfunction. Decreased nitric oxide bioavailability may be the main reason.

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

4.7
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