4.7 Article

Celiac Disease and Cardiovascular Risk: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12062087

关键词

celiac disease; cardiovascular disease; intima-media thickness; atherosclerosis; gluten-free diet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to investigate the relationship between celiac disease (CD) and premature atherosclerosis, including cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study found that patients with CD have a reduced risk of CVD, especially those on long-term gluten-free diet (GFD) treatment.
Background: The association of celiac disease (CD) with premature atherosclerosis, including increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and cardiovascular disease (CVD), is controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate this relationship. Methods: Clinical records of patients from Northern Sardinia referred to the Gastroenterology section of the Department of Medicine, University of Sassari, Italy, were analyzed. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for CVD with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated according to established risk factors, including age, sex, diabetes, dyslipidemia, overweight/obesity, blood hypertension, and cigarette smoking, as well as a possible risk factor such as H. pylori infection. Results: In a total of 8495 patients (mean age 52.1 +/- 17.3 years; 64.7% females), 2504 reported a diagnosis of CVD and 632 of CD. Logistic regression analysis showed a significantly reduced risk of CVD among patients with CD (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.41). Moreover, the long duration of the gluten-free diet (GFD) was able to lower the risk of CVD in celiac patients. Finally, CD significantly decreased the frequency of carotid plaques (11.8% vs. 40.1%, p < 0.001). Conclusions. Our retrospective study demonstrated that CD reduces the risk of CVD in general and more specifically of carotid lesions after adjusting for potential confounders, especially in those on GFD for a long time.

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