4.6 Article

Endothelial dysfunction and C-reactive protein in relation with the severity of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome

期刊

SLEEP
卷 30, 期 8, 页码 997-1001

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/30.8.997

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objectives: To investigate flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in relation with the severity of respiratory disturbances and hypoxemia. Design: After subjects had completed nocturnal polysomnography, FMD was measured in the brachial artery, and blood samples were obtained to determine serum CRP levels. Setting: Sleep laboratory in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patients: Ninety men: 22 normal controls, 28 subjects with mild to moderate OSAS, and 40 with severe OSAS. Measurements and Results: FMD was found to be correlated with oxygen desaturation index (ODI), percentage of time below 90% O-2 saturation, average 0 2 saturation, lowest 0 2 saturation, systolic blood pressure, apnea hypopnea index (AHI), and body mass index. In addition, CRP was correlated with body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, neck circumference, diastolic pressure, average O-2 saturation and percentage of time below 90% O-2 saturation but not with AHI. Stepwise multiple regression showed that the ODI was a significant determinant of FMD (adjusted R-2 = 10%, beta = -0.33, P < 0.01). In addition, body mass index (beta = 0.25, P < 0.05) and waist-to-hip ratio (beta = 0.21, P < 0.05) were found to be significantly correlated with CRP (adjusted R-2 = 12%, P < 0.05), independently of other factors. There was no correlation between FMD and CRP. Conclusion: As a marker of nocturnal hypoxemia, ODI rather than AHI might better explain the relationship between OSAS and FMD. Because body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio were identified as risk factors of high serum CRP in OSAS, obesity should be considered when predicting cardiovascular complications in OSAS.

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