4.7 Article

Serum Magnesium is associated with Carotid Atherosclerosis in patients with high cardiovascular risk (CORDIOPREV Study)

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44322-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacion Patrimonio Comunal Olivarero
  2. Consejeria de Economia, Innovacion y Ciencia [CVI-7450]
  3. Ministerio de Economia [AGL2015-67896-P, PIE14/00005, PIE14/00031]
  4. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FIS 14/00872, FIS 17/01024]
  5. FEDER (European Regional Development Fund)
  6. Nicolas Monardes Programme, Consejeria de Salud-SAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to ascertain whether there is an independent association between serum magnesium (Mg) and the Carotid Intima-Media Thickness (IMT-CC), a well-accepted atherosclerotic-biomarker surrogate of cardiovascular disease (CVD), in a population with high cardiovascular risk. Serum Mg and traditional atherosclerotic risk factors were recorded in 939 patients (mean age, 59.6 +/- 0.3 years, 83.2% men) with coronary heart disease (CHD) enrolled in the CORDIOPREV trial. Serum Mg strongly associated with IMT-CC. Before adjusting for potential confounding factors, I MT-CC decreased by 0.111 +/- 0.011 mm per mg/dl increase in serum Mg (p < 0.001). After adjustment, the effect of Mg did not appear mediated through factors related to glucose metabolism, the lipid profile or the mineral metabolism and renal function. Multivariate models showed the lower Mg levels (quartile 1) as a strong independent factor contributing to IMT-CC along with age, sex, SBP, HDL-C, and diuretic use. Logistic regression analysis confirmed the predictive ability of serum Mg to differentiate patients at higher atherosclerotic risk as defined by an IMT-CC >= 1.0 mm, yielding a OR for the lower quartile of 10.623 (95%CI 2.311-48.845; P = 0.002) and a ROC-derived cutoff of 1.61 mg/dl. Therefore, our findings outline low serum magnesium as a possible independent risk factor for carotid atherosclerosis.

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