4.8 Article

Markers of inflammation and rapid coronary artery disease progression in patients with stable angina pectoris

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 110, 期 13, 页码 1747-1753

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000142664.18739.92

关键词

C-reactive protein; cell adhesion molecules; coronary disease; inflammation; neopterin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Both endothelial cell activation and macrophage activation play a significant role in atherogenesis and atheromatous plaque vulnerability and may determine rapid coronary artery disease (CAD) progression. We sought to assess the association between serum inflammatory markers and rapid CAD progression in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris. Methods and Results-We studied 124 chronic stable angina pectoris patients ( 84 men; mean age, 61+/-10 years) who were on a waiting list for coronary angioplasty for a mean time of 4.8+/-2.4 months. CAD progression was defined as greater than or equal to10% diameter reduction of a pre-existing stenosis greater than or equal to50%, greater than or equal to30% diameter reduction of a stenosis <50%, development of a new stenosis >= 30% in a previously normal segment, or progression of any stenosis to total occlusion. CAD progression occurred in 35 patients (28%). After adjustment with binary logistic regression, neopterin (P<0.001), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (P=0.017), matrix metalloproteinase-9 (P=0.002), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (P<0.001), and previous history of unstable angina (P=0.01) were independent predictors of rapid CAD progression. The association between rapid disease progression and inflammatory markers remained significant even when presence of complex lesions was introduced into the multivariate model. Conclusions-Rapid CAD progression in patients with stable angina pectoris is associated with increased C-reactive protein levels and raised concentrations of biochemical markers of endothelial and macrophage activation.

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

4.8
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