4.6 Article

Smoking, diabetes, and blood cholesterol differ in their associations with subclinical atherosclerosis: The Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 186, 期 2, 页码 441-447

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2005.08.010

关键词

atherosclerosis; carotid arteries; cholesterol; diabetes mellitus; smoking

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01-HC-95163, N01-HC-95164, N01-HC-95165, N01-HC-95169, N01-HC-95162, N01-HC-95161, N01-HC-95160, N01-HC-95159] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous reports suggest that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) is associated with atherosclerosis plaque initiation while cigarette smoking, is more associated with plaque progression. The role of diabetes in plaque initiation and progression is not clear. The aim of this study was to confirm and extend these findings. Among 6384 men and women aged 45-84 free of clinical cardiovascular disease, subclinical atherosclerosis severity was classified on the basis of ultrasound measures of carotid stenosis and thickness and the ankle-brachial blood pressure index of lower extremity arterial disease. Carotid plaques were classified as echolucent or echogenic. Distensibility was calculated from the change in carotid diameter over the cardiac cycle. The smoking, association with minimal, moderate, and more severe disease was progressive. estimated as equivalent to LDLc effects of 40, 85 and 238 mg/dl respectively. LDLc was relatively more associated with echolucent plaques' smoking with echogenic plaques. Diabetes was associated with carotid stiffness, whereas smoking was associated with greater distensibility. The results, together with pathological literature, Suggest that LDLc may be of key importance both in plaque initiation and vulnerability to rupture, whereas smoking may relate to plaque progression to thicker, more fibrous lesions. Diabetes contributes uniquely to arterial stiffness. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.6
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