4.4 Article

Usefulness of Coronary Artery Calcium to Predict Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Men Versus Women (from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 120, 期 10, 页码 1847-1853

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.089

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the association of coronary artery calcium (CAC) and risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) among men and women in a multiethnic cohort. Coronary artery disease is a risk factor for development of HFpEF and assessment of subclinical atherosclerosis using CAC may allow for the early identification of patients at risk for HFpEF. We used data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. CAC was measured at baseline in all participants. Incident HFpEF was defined as heart failure hospitalization with left ventricular ejection fraction 50%. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate HFpEF risk by CAC categories (0, 1 to 100, 101 to 300, and >300) and by CAC (continuous), stratified by gender and race/ethnicity. Of 6809 total participants, 127 incident HFpEF cases (1.8%) were ascertained. Mean age was 62 years (+/-10 years), and the participants were 53% female, 38% White, and 12% Black. In adjusted analysis, CAC >300 was associated with increased risk of HFpEF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.68, 95% confidence interval [95 CI] 1.00, 1.83); however, this was significant only in women (HR 2.82, 95% CI 1.32, 6.00 vs HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.46, 1.82 for men, interaction p = 0.03). Similarly, CAC modeled as a continuous variable was strongly predictive in women but not in men. In conclusion, measurement of CAC, a marker of coronary atherosclerosis, may stratify risk of HFpEF beyond traditional risk factors for women. Further investigation is needed to better understand potential gender differences in pathophysiology and presentation of HFpEF. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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