3.8 Article

Adipokines and Arterial Stiffness in the Elderly

期刊

VASCULAR HEALTH AND RISK MANAGEMENT
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 535-543

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/VHRM.S274861

关键词

leptin; adiponectin; elderly; arterial stiffness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between adipokines and arterial stiffness in a group of 85 elderly subjects and the role of leptin and adiponectin on subclinical vascular damage, defined by a PWV>10 m/s. Methods: In each subject, we evaluated anthropometry, body composition by DXA (fat mass, fat mass%, lean mass), metabolic variables, leptin, adiponectin, systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure (SBP, DBP, MAP, PP), carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) and carotid-radial pulse wave velocity (crPWV). Results: In the study population, significant associations were observed between cfPWV and crPWV, age, SBP, MAP, waist circumference, fat body mass and leptin. The study population was subdivided in 2 subgroups according to adipokine patterns: group 1 included patients with high adiponectin and low leptin, and group 2 patients had high leptin and low adiponectin. SBP, PP, cfPWV were significantly higher in subjects with high leptin and low adiponectin (group 2). Even after adjustment for gender, fat mass%, MAP, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, cfPWV was higher in group 2 than group 1. In a logistic binary regression on the entire population, considering subclinical vascular damage as a dependent variable and age, gender, MAP, fat mass %, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol and category of subjects with high leptin and low adiponectin as independent variables, MAP and category of subjects with high leptin and low adiponectin were significant predictors (OR, respectively, 1.09 and 3.61). Conclusion: In conclusion, in the elderly, the presence at the same time of high leptin levels and low adiponectin levels seems to have synergic effects on arterial stiffness.

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

3.8
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