4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Coronary artery disease is more severe in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism

期刊

SURGERY
卷 167, 期 1, 页码 149-154

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.05.094

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Primary hyperparathyroidism is associated with an increased cardiovascular mortality, but mechanisms underlying this association are unclear. The goal of this study was to evaluate coronary artery calcifications via the coronary calcification score in primary hyperparathyroidism patients, to compare with control subjects, and to identify risk factors for high to intermediate risk coronary calcification scores (coronary calcification score >100). Method: Cross-sectional study of primary hyperparathyroidism patients without a history of coronary artery disease, diabetes, or severe, chronic kidney disease. Coronary calcification scores were compared with a cohort of population-based control subjects. Results: The mean coronary calcification score was 120 344 in 130 primary hyperparathyroidism patients. The coronary calcification score was >100 in 27 patients (21%). When compared with control subjects, the percentage of positive coronary calcification scores was similar in primary hyperparathyroidism patients (53% vs 50%); however, positive coronary calcification scores were at the 67th percentile of the control subjects cohort (P < .001). In multivariable regression, patient age (1.1; 1.1-1.2; P < .001), patients in the mild normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism group (5.1; 1.1-22.6; P = .037), and the need for antihypertensive medications (6.1; 1.8-20.9; P < .001) remained independent predictors for a coronary calcification score >100. Conclusion: Positive coronary calcification scores were greater in primary hyperparathyroidism patients than in population-based control subjects. These study data may provide new criteria for parathyroidectomy in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. 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