4.2 Review

Association between central haemodynamics and risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
卷 33, 期 7, 页码 531-541

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41371-019-0187-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2015A030313660]
  2. Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou [201604020143, 201604020018, 201510010254, 201803040012]
  3. Medical Science and Technology Research Fund of Guangdong Province [B2018023]
  4. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017FYC1307603, 2016YFC1301305]
  5. Science Technology Program of Guangdong Province [2014B020212008]
  6. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81300230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this meta-analysis of longitudinal studies was to obtain a valid and cogent assessment of predictive value of central haemodynamic variables for cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. We searched for eligible articles using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science between 1 January 1969 and 31 December 2017. We finally included 24 prospective cohort studies, comprising 146,986 individuals for this analysis. Adjusted pooled hazard ratio of total cardiovascular events was 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.16) for a 10 mmHg increase of central systolic pressure, 1.12 (95% CI 1.05-1.19) for a 10 mmHg increase of central pulse pressure and 1.18 (95% CI 1.09-1.27) for a 10% increase of central augmentation index. Furthermore, pooled hazard ratio of all-cause mortality was 1.22 (95% CI 1.14-1.31) for a 10 mmHg increase of central pulse pressure and 1.19 (95% CI 1.05-1.34) for a 10% increase of central augmentation index. Central haemodynamic variables are independent predictors of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. This finding supports the notion that central pressure components and indices could be suitably implemented in clinical practice.

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

4.2
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