4.6 Article

Association Between Sonographically Diagnosed Nephrolithiasis and Subclinical Coronary Artery Calcification in Adults

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
卷 71, 期 1, 页码 35-41

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.06.026

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although recent studies suggest an association between nephrolithiasis and clinical cardiovascular events, this association has been underexplored. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting & Participants: 62,091 asymptomatic adults without known coronary heart disease who underwent a screening health examination that included cardiac tomography. Predictor: Nephrolithiasis. Outcome: Coronary artery calcification (CAC). Measurements: Nephrolithiasis assessed using ultrasonography of the abdomen. CAC scoring assessed using cardiac computed tomography. Results: The prevalence of CAC scores >0 was 13.1% overall. Participants with nephrolithiasis had a higher prevalence of coronary calcification than those without (19.1% vs 12.8%). In Tobit models adjusted for age and sex, the CAC score ratio comparing participants with nephrolithiasis with those without nephrolithiasis was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.19-2.05). After further adjustment for screening center, year of screening examination, physical activity, alcohol intake, smoking status, education level, body mass index, family history of cardiovascular disease, total energy intake, glucose concentration, systolic blood pressure, triglyceride concentration, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, uric acid concentration, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, the CAC score ratio was attenuated, but remained significant (CAC score ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00-1.71). Limitations: Computed tomographic diagnosis of nephrolithiasis was unavailable. Conclusions: Nephrolithiasis was associated with the presence of CAC in adults without known coronary heart disease, supporting the hypothesis that these 2 health conditions share a common pathophysiology.

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