4.6 Article

Subfoveal Choroidal Thickness, Cardiovascular History, and Risk Factors in the Elderly: The Montrachet Study

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 60, 期 7, 页码 2431-2437

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.18-26488

关键词

elderly; population-based study; cardiovascular disease; subfoveal choroidal thickness; Heart Score; Montrachet study; choroid; retina

资金

  1. Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique
  2. Regional Council of Burgundy
  3. INRA
  4. CNRS
  5. Universite de Bourgogne
  6. FEDER (European Funding for Regional Economic Development)
  7. French government [ANR-11-LABX-0021-01-LipS-TIC Labex]
  8. Regional Council of Burgundy France (PARI Agrale 1)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To measure subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) in the elderly and to determine the associations among SFCT, cardiovascular history, and the 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS. We conducted a population-based study, the Montrachet (Maculopathy Optic Nerve, nuTRition neurovAsCular, and HEarT disease) study, in subjects older than 75 years. SFCT was measured with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) with enhanced-depth mode imaging. Participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination. The history of CVD, CVD risk factors, and a score-based estimation of their 10-year risk of cardiovascular mortality (Heart Score) were collected. RESULTS. Overall, 764 participants were retained for analysis. The mean SFCT was 206.4 +/- 83.0 mu m. The mean age was 81.9 +/- 3.6 years. After a multivariable analysis, older age (beta = -32.56 mu m, P < 0.001) and longer axial length (beta = -20.71 mu m, P < 0.001) were independently associated with thinner SFCT. SFCT was not significantly associated with sex, cardiovascular history, classical CVD risk factors, or prognostic risk score. CONCLUSIONS. This study confirms that longer axial length and older age are associated with thinner SFCT. However, SFCT does not appear to be a biomarker for cardiovascular history in this study.

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