4.4 Article

Subclinical cardiac abnormalities in human immunodeficiency virus-infected men receiving antiretroviral therapy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 101, 期 8, 页码 1213-1217

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.11.073

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although cardiotoxic effects of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) are a growing concern, there is a lack of prospective studies of subclinical involvement of the heart in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. This study evaluated noninvasively cardiac morphologic characteristics and function in HIV-positive (HIV+) men receiving HAART for >= 2 years with no clinical evidence of cardiovascular disease. Echocardiography at rest, including tissue Doppler imaging and exercise testing, were performed in 30 HIV+ men (age 42.1 +/- 4.7 years, duration of HIV infection 10.4 +/- 4.7 years, duration of HAART 5.3 +/- .1 years) and 26 age-matched healthy controls. At rest, HIV+ patients had similar left ventricular (LV) mass indexed to height(2.7) (40.6 +/- 9.5 vs 37.5 +/- 9.3 g/m; p > 0.05), but a higher prevalence of LV diastolic dysfunction (abnormal relaxation or pseudonormal filling pattern in 64% of patients vs 12% of controls; p <0.001). LV systolic function indexes were significantly lower (ejection fraction 60.4 +/- 8.7% vs 66.9 +/- 6.9%; p <0.01, and tissue Doppler imaging peak systolic velocity 11.4 +/- 1.6 vs 13.5 +/- 2.2 cm/s; p <0.001). Pulmonary artery pressure was higher in patients compared with controls (32.1 +/- 5.4 vs 26.1 +/- 6.5 mm Hg; p <0.001). Exercise testing showed decreased exercise tolerance in HIV+ patients, with no case of myocardial ischemia. In conclusion, subclinical cardiac abnormalities are frequently observed in HIV+ patients on HAART. The usefulness of systematic noninvasive screening in this population should be considered. GECEM study no. 30: National Agency for AIDS Research (ANRS). (C) 2008 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