4.4 Article

Relation of High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol:Apolipoprotein A-I Ratio to Progression of Coronary Atherosclerosis in Statin-Treated Patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 114, 期 5, 页码 681-685

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.06.001

关键词

-

资金

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. Novartis
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. Anthera
  5. LipoScience
  6. Roche
  7. Resverlogix
  8. Abbott
  9. Pfizer
  10. Merck
  11. Takeda
  12. Omthera
  13. Novo-Nordisk
  14. Sankyo
  15. Sanofi-Aventis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein A-I (apoA-I) levels are inversely associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Associations between these HDL-C-related measurements and coronary plaque progression have not been studied. We performed a retrospective analysis of 2,566 statin-treated patients with angiographic coronary artery disease who underwent serial evaluation of atheroma burden with intravascular ultrasound. Relations between achieved levels of HDL-related measurements with clinical characteristics and changes in plaque burden were determined A strong correlation between HDL-C and apoA-I (r = 0.80, p < 0.001) was observed. HDL-C, apoA-I, and the HDL-C:apoA-I ratio demonstrated negative correlations with the change in percent atheroma volume and total atheroma volume (all p <= 0.001). Increasing levels of achieved HDL-C:apoA-I (p = 0.04), but not HDL-C (p = 0.18) or apoA-I (p = 0.67), were associated with less progression of percent atheroma volume. Similar results were seen for change in total atheroma volume, with less progression seen with increased HDL-C:apoA-I (p = 0.002) but not with increases in HDL-C (p = 0.09) or apoA-I (p = 0.19). In conclusion, increasing levels of HDL-C:apoA-I associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis. This suggests that interventions increasing the cholesterol content of HDL particles may be of cardiovascular benefit. (C) 2014 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