4.6 Article

Elevated serum uric acid and risk of cardiovascular or all-cause mortality in people with suspected or definite coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 254, 期 -, 页码 193-199

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2016.10.006

关键词

Uric acid; Coronary artery disease; Cardiovascular mortality; All-cause mortality; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81000068]
  2. Project funding for the introduction of overseas students in Hebei Province [2015-243]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Serum uric acid (SUA) has been recognized as an independent risk factor for mortality in the general population. We performed this meta-analysis to determine whether elevated SUA levels are associated with greater risk of cardiovascular or all-cause mortality in people with suspected or definite coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: The Pubmed and Embase databases were searched up to April 1, 2016 for the longitudinal studies that investigated the association between the elevated SUA and cardiovascular or all-cause mortality risk in people with suspected or definite CAD. Pooled adjusted risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for the highest vs. the lowest SUA category or each 1 mg/ml SUA rise. Results: Nine studies enrolling 25,229 participants were included in the analyses. The highest vs. lowest SUA category was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 2.09; 95% CI: 1.45-3.02) and all-cause mortality (RR 1.80; 95% CI: 1.39-2.34) after adjustment for potential confounders in a random effects model. Moreover, each 1 mg/ml SUA rise significantly increased by 12% cardiovascular mortality and by 20% all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Elevated SUA levels are strongly and independently associated with greater risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in people with suspected or definite CAD. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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