4.6 Article

Association of Rosacea With Cardiovascular Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020671

关键词

cardiovascular diseases; coronary heart disease; inflammation; rosacea; stroke

资金

  1. National Health Insurance Service of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study suggests that patients with rosacea are at higher risk of developing subsequent cardiovascular disease. Proper education for rosacea patients on managing modifiable risk factors of cardiovascular disease is necessary.
Background There is emerging evidence that rosacea, a chronic cutaneous inflammatory disease, is associated with various systemic diseases. However, its association with cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains controversial. We aimed to investigate whether patients with rosacea are at increased risk of developing CVD. Methods and Results This retrospective cohort study from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening Cohort included patients with newly diagnosed rosacea (n=2681) and age-, sex-, and index year-matched reference populations without rosacea (n=26 810) between 2003 and 2014. The primary outcome was subsequent CVD including coronary heart disease and stroke. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate adjusted hazard ratios for subsequent CVD adjusted for major risk factors of CVD. Compared with the reference population (13 410 women; mean [SD] age, 57.7 [9.2] years), patients with rosacea (1341 women; mean [SD] age, 57.7 [9.2] years) displayed an increased risk for CVD (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.40) and coronary heart disease (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.60). The risk for stroke was not significantly elevated (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.37). Conclusions This study suggests that patients with rosacea are more likely to develop subsequent CVD. Proper education for patients with rosacea to manage other modifiable risk factors of CVD along with rosacea is needed.

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