4.0 Article

The prevalence of erectile dysfunction in the primary care setting - Importance of risk factors for diabetes and vascular disease

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 166, 期 2, 页码 213-219

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.2.213

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and associated risk factors has been described in many clinical settings, but there is little information regarding men seen by primary care physicians. We sought to identify independent factors associated with ED in a primary care setting. Methods: We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of 3921 Canadian men, aged 40 to 88 years, seen by primary care physicians. Participants completed a full medical history, physical examination, and measurement of fasting blood glucose and lipid levels. We used the International index of Erectile Function to define ED as a score of less than 26 on the erectile function domain. Results: The overall prevalence of ED was 49.4%. The presence of cardiovascular disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.81; P < .01) or diabetes (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.16; P < .001) increased the probability of ED after adjustment for other confounders. Among those individuals without cardiovascular disease or diabetes, the calculated 10-year Framingham coronary risk (OR, 1.03 per 1% increase; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05; P < .001) and fasting blood glucose levels (OR, 1.14 per 18-mg/dL [1-mmol/L] increase; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01) were independently associated with ED. Erectile dysfunction was also independently associated with undiagnosed hyperglycemia (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.02=2.10; P = .04), impaired fasting glucose (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.46; P = .004), and the metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.24-1.69; P < .001). Conclusions: Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, future coronary risk, and increasing fasting glucose levels are independently associated with ED. It remains to be determined if ED precedes the development of these conditions.

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

4.0
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