4.7 Article

High von Willebrand factor levels increase the risk of first ischemic stroke -: Influence of ADAMTS13, inflammation, and genetic variability

期刊

STROKE
卷 37, 期 11, 页码 2672-2677

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000244767.39962.f7

关键词

ADAMTS13; hemostasis; ischemic stroke; von Willebrand factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Elevated von Willebrand factor (vWF) concentrations are associated with an increased risk of ischemic heart disease. Several factors influence vWF antigen levels and activity, including blood group, genetic variability, acute-phase response, and proteolysis by A Disintegrin and Metalloprotease with ThromboSpondin motif (ADAMTS 13), a determinant of proteolytic cleavage of vWF. We assessed how these factors affect the relation between vWF and the occurrence of stroke to understand the underlying mechanism. Methods-In a case-control study of 124 first-ever ischemic stroke patients and 125 age- and sex-matched controls, we studied vWF antigen (vWF:Ag), vWF ristocetin cofactor activity (vWF:RCo), ADAMTS13 activity, the -1793C/G polymorphism in the vWF gene, and C-reactive protein. Results-vWF antigen and activity levels were significantly higher in cases than in controls. The relative risk of ischemic stroke was highest in individuals in the upper quartile of vWF:Ag (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.4 to 7.5) and vWF:RCo (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 4.8) compared with individuals in the lowest quartiles. In individuals with ADAMTS 13 in the lowest quartile, the relative risk of stroke was 1.7 (95% CI, 0.7 to 3.9) compared with the highest quartile. C-reactive protein, ADAMTS 13, and genetic variation did not affect the association between vWF and the relative risk of stroke, whereas blood group did affect the association. Conclusions-vWF antigen and activity are associated with the occurrence of acute ischemic stroke. This relation is unaffected by the severity of the acute-phase response or by genetic variation or degradation.

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

4.7
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