4.4 Article

Relationship between lipoprotein (a) and subclinical carotid atherosclerosis in asymptomatic individuals

期刊

CLINICS
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2022.100107

关键词

Carotid atherosclerosis; Carotid plaques; Lipoprotein (a)

资金

  1. State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2006/60585-9]
  2. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) - Brazil [88882.434895/2019-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) levels are associated with carotid plaques and intima-media thickness in healthy subjects. Lp(a) levels above 30 mg/dL contribute to an increased risk of carotid plaque development.
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between Lipoprotein (a) - Lp(a) levels and carotid Intima-Media Thickness (cIMT) and with carotid plaques in healthy subjects because of previous contradictory data. Methods: A total of 317 healthy normolipidemic subjects (20-77 years old) were selected. The cIMT and atherosclerotic plaques were determined by B-mode ultrasonography. Mann-Whitney tests were performed to compare the groups according to Lp(a) levels and to explore the associations between Lp(a), carotid plaques, and cIMT, logistic and linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Studied population (51% females, median age 43 years old) presented carotid plaques and cIMT >= 0.9 mm in 23% and 18% of the participants, respectively. The group with Lp(a) levels > 30 mg/dL presented significantly higher age and atherosclerotic plaques. Indeed, multivariate linear regression analysis showed a significant association between Lp(a), age, and race. On the other hand, logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the subjects with Lp(a) > 30 mg/dL have a significantly high risk of carotid plaques. Conclusion: The data from the present study indicate that Lp(a) levels above 30 mg/dL contribute to the development of carotid plaques even in apparently healthy participants.

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