4.7 Article

Increase in ventricular-arterial stiffness in patients with psoriatic arthritis

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 51, 期 12, 页码 2215-2223

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes213

关键词

stiffness; ventricular remodelling; PsA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Ventricular and arterial stiffness is an accepted cause of myocardial diastolic dysfunction. The aim of this study is to determine whether there is increased ventricular and arterial stiffness in patients with PsA and any relationship with disease-related risk factors. Methods. Seventy-three patients with PsA were divided into two subgroups based on the absence or presence of hypertension and/or left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Fifty healthy controls were enrolled for comparison. All participants underwent non-invasive assessments including conventional echocardiography with tissue Doppler imaging and pulse wave analysis. Ventricular stiffness was measured by ventricular end-systolic and diastolic elastance, whereas arterial stiffness was measured by total arterial compliance and aortic augmentation index. Results. There was significantly increased ventricular and arterial stiffness in patients with PsA (P < 0.001), even in those without hypertension and/or LV hypertrophy. Based on the cut-off points derived from the controls, 38.4% of PsA patients had increased LV stiffness including 31.5% in diastole and 17.8% in systole, and 15.1% had increased arterial stiffness. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that long PsA disease duration (> 10 years) (odds ratio = 6.55, P = 0.001) was an independent risk factor for increased LV diastolic elastance after adjusting for age, gender and hypertension. Conclusion. Patients with PsA may have increased ventricular and arterial stiffness even without evidence of LV remodelling, and those with long disease duration may be at a higher risk. Therefore, prolonged inflammatory burden may be an important cause of early cardiovascular disease in patients with PsA.

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