4.4 Article

Serum Angiopoetin-2 Levels in Pediatric Patients After Fontan Operation

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 203, 期 -, 页码 23-28

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.06.112

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the serum angiopoietin-2 levels in pediatric patients after Fontan operation with those with congenital heart disease as control group. The results showed significantly elevated levels of angiopoietin-2 in the Fontan group, and a higher level of angiopoietin-2 was identified as an independent risk factor for death or Fontan-related adverse events.
Angiopoietin-2 is associated with chronic inflammation and angiogenesis, but its activity after Fontan operation in pediatric patients remains uncertain. We compared serum angiopoietin-2 levels in pediatric patients after Fontan operation versus those with congen-ital heart disease as a control group. A total of 185 patients (median age 7 [3 to 12] years, 106 males) were included, consisting of 140 in the Fontan group and 45 in the control group. Serum angiopoietin-2 levels were significantly higher in the Fontan group (7,670 vs 2,351 pg/ml, p <0.001). In the Fontan group, a serum angiopoietin-2 level & GE;3.9 of common logarithm was an independent risk factor for death or Fontan-related adverse events with an adjusted hazard ratio of 6.25 (95% confidence interval 1.64 to 23.9, p = 0.007). In pre -operative variables, desaturation was independently associated with increased serum angiopoietin-2 levels after Fontan operation (p = 0.047). In conclusion, serum angiopoie-tin-2 levels were elevated in the pediatric phase after Fontan operation. In Fontan patients, a higher serum angiopoietin-2 level was an independent risk factor for death or Fontan-related adverse events. The clinical implication of measuring and monitoring serum angio-poietin-2 levels in this cohort requires further investigation.& COPY; 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2023;203:23-28)

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

4.4
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