4.5 Review

Risk of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 356, 期 5, 页码 451-463

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjms.2018.08.001

关键词

Coronary artery disease; Systemic lupus erythematosus; Lupus erythematosus disseminates

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81570491]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The association between chronic inflammation and the accelerated development of atherosclerosis is well recognized. However, it remains controversial as to whether the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) is elevated in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The objective of this meta-analysis was to obtain a better estimate of the risk of CAD in patients with SLE. Methods: An English-restricted literature review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using key databases, surveying all articles published through October 31, 2017. Specific search terms included SLE and coronary artery disease as well as appropriate MeSH terms. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment. Results: Nine studies were identified and included in this meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratio of CAD in patients with SLE was 3.39 (95% CI: 2.15-5.35). The statistical heterogeneity of this meta-analysis was high, with an 12 value of 79.5%. An elevated risk of CAD was consistently observed in both female and male SLE patients (pooled risk ratio: 3.27 [95% CI: 2.01-5.30] and 3.16 [95% CI: 2.02-4.94], respectively). Conclusions: SLE patients are at significantly higher risk of developing CAD. However, as relatively few studies were available for incorporation into this meta-analysis, there is a clear need for further studies with larger sample sizes that better parse gender-related differences in CAD susceptibility among SLE patients. Future work to standardize cardiovascular risk factor identification and monitoring in SLE patients is also needed.

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