4.5 Article

Metabolic syndrome, endothelial dysfunction, and risk of cardiovascular events: The Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS)

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 156, 期 2, 页码 405-410

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.02.022

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 NS-29993, K24 NS02241, K23 HL072866]
  2. American Heart Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Metabolic syndrome (MetS) predisposes to cardiovascular disease. Endothelial dysfunction is thought to be an important factor in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. We tested the hypothesis that both MetS and endothelial dysfunction are vascular risk factors and provide additive prognostic values in predicting cardiovascular events in a multiethnic community sample. Methods The study population consisted of 819 subjects (467 female, mean age 66.5 8.8 years, 66% Hispanic) enrolled in the NOMAS. Metabolic syndrome was defined using the revised Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) was measured using high-resolution ultrasound. Endothelial dysfunction was defined as FMD < 8.44% (lower 3 quartiles). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the effect of MetS and endothelial dysfunction on risk of cardiovascular events. Results During 81 21 months of follow-up, events occurred in 84 subjects. Metabolic syndrome was independently associated with cardiovascular events in a multivariate model, including cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio 2.08, 95% CI 1.27-3.40). Subjects with both MetS and endothelial dysfunction were at higher risk for cardiovascular events than those with either one of them alone (adjusted hazard ratio 2.60, 95% CI 1.14-5.92). Conclusions Metabolic syndrome is associated with incident cardiovascular events. Combined use of MetS and FMD identifies those who are at higher risk of cardiovascular events. Metabolic syndrome and noninvasive FMD testing can be used concurrently for cardiovascular risk prediction.

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

4.5
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