4.4 Article

Relation between obesity and severity of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 97, 期 9, 页码 1277-1280

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.11.061

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the relations among body mass index (BMI), extent of coronary artery disease, and frequency of high-risk coronary anatomy (HRCA) in 928 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography during a 6-month period. HRCA was defined as >= 50% stenosis of the left main coronary artery and/or significant 3-vessel coronary artery disease (>= 70% narrowing). BMI was classified into 5 subgroups: low (< 21 kg/m(2)), normal (21 to 24 kg/m(2)), overweight (25 to 29 kg/m(2)), obese (30 to 34 kg/m(2)), and severely obese (>= 35 kg/m(2)). Obese patients (BMI >= 30 kg/m(2)) were younger (61.4 +/- 10.7 vs 65.3 +/- 11.4 years, p < 0.0001) and had higher prevalences of hyperlipidemia, systemic hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. HRCA was present less often in obese patients (56 of 245, 23%, vs 250 of 683, 37%, p = 0.0002). Multivariate regression analysis showed that advancing age (p < 0.0001), male gender (p = 0.007), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.0004), and hyperlipidemia (p = 0.0008) were independent predictors of high-risk anatomy, whereas obesity remained a significant negative independent predictor (p = 0.02). Late (30 to 36 months) mortality was not different between obese (6.9%) and nonobese (8.2%) patients but was significantly higher in. patients with HRCA (12.4%) than in those without HRCA (5.6%, p = 0.0003). In conclusion, obese patients who were referred for coronary angiography were younger and had a lower prevalence of HRCA. Obese patients were probably referred for angiography at an earlier stage of their disease, thus explaining the obesity paradox in several reports of better short-term outcome in obese patients who undergo cardiac procedures. (c) 2006 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