4.7 Article

Hyperhomocysteinemia is one of the risk factors associated with cerebrovascular stiffness in hypertensive patients, especially elderly males

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep05663

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pfizer Inc.
  2. Asteras Co.
  3. Takeda Pharm Co.
  4. Beringer-Ingerheim Japan Co.
  5. Daiichi-Sankyo Co.
  6. MSD Co.
  7. Mochida Pharm Co.
  8. Novartis Pharm. Co.
  9. DaiNihon-Sumitomo Co.
  10. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26461112] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyperhomocystemia has been reported to be associated with cardiovascular disease, especially stroke. The resistive index (RI) estimated by carotid ultrasound is an established variable for estimating the risk of cerebral infarction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between homocysteine concentration and carotid RI, a marker of cerebral vascular resistance in essential hypertensive patients. We measured serum total homocysteine and carotid RI in 261 patients. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the association of homocysteine with carotid RI and intima media thickness (IMT). Age, sex, BMI, systolic blood pressure (SBP), homocysteine, total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), uric acid, CRP, HbA1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and use of antihypertensive agents were included as independent variables. Age, sex, use of antihypertensive agents, HDL-C and homocysteine levels were shown to be significant predictors of carotid RI, but not IMT. Multiple regression analysis in men older than 65 years showed homocysteine and SBP were associated significantly with carotid RI. In elderly male patients, homocysteine was the strongest predictor of carotid RI (B=0.0068, CI = 0.0017-0.0120, P = 0.011) in the multivariate model. In conclusion, hyperhomocysteinemia is associated with carotid RI, a surrogate marker of cerebral vascular resistance, especially in elderly men.

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