4.2 Article

Arterial stiffness by oscillometric device and telomere lenght in juvenile idiopathic artrhitis with no cardiovascular risk factors: a cross-sectional study

期刊

PEDIATRIC RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12969-017-0165-1

关键词

Arterial stiffness; Pulse wave velocity; Telomere length; Artrhitis juvenile; Unifyng hypothesis

资金

  1. Brazilian government by Fundacao Coordenacao Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Advances in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treatment is promoting free disease survival. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) may emerge as an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Pulse wave velocity (PWV), a surrogate marker of arterial stiffness, and telomere length (TL) are considered as potential predictors of CVD and its outcomes. The study aim was to assess PWV, TL in a JIA population and to test its correlation. In a cross sectional study, 24 JIA patients, 21 controls for TL and 20 controls for PWV were included. PWV was assessed by an oscillometric device. TL was assessed by qPCR. JIA activity was accessed by JADAS-27. Smoking, diabetes, obesity, renal impairment, hypertension, dyslipidemia and inflammatory diseases were excluded. Findings: Between cases and controls for TL, there was significant difference in age. No differences in gender, ethnics and bone mass index between JIA and control groups for PWV and TL. The JADAS-27 median was 8. TL was significantly reduced in JIA (0.85 +/- 0.34 vs. 1. 67 +/- 1.38, P = 0.025). When age adjusted by ANCOVA, the difference remained significant (P = 0,032). PWV was normal in all patients (5.1 +/- 0.20 m/s vs. 4.98 +/- 0.06 m/s, P = 0, 66). There was no correlation between TL, PWV or JADAS-27. Conclusion: Compared to controls, JIA with high disease activity and no CVD risk factors have shorter telomeres and normal PWV. As far as we know, this first time this correlation is being tested in rheumatic disease and in paediatrics.

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

4.2
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