4.8 Article

Clinical usefulness of very high and very low levels of C-reactive protein across the full range of Framingham Risk Scores

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 109, 期 16, 页码 1955-1959

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000125690.80303.A8

关键词

risk factors; prevention; epidemiology; inflammation; C-reactive protein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a strong independent risk factor for cardiovascular events, and levels of hsCRP of <1, 1 to <3, and greater than or equal to3 mg/L have been suggested to define low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups. However, the positive predictive value of very low (<0.5 mg/L) and very high levels of hsCRP (>10.0 mg/L) is uncertain. Methods and Results-Baseline levels of hsCRP were evaluated among 27 939 apparently healthy women who were followed up for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death. Crude and Framingham Risk Score (FRS)-adjusted relative risks (RRs) of incident cardiovascular events were calculated across a full range of hsCRP levels. Cardiovascular risks increased linearly from the very lowest (referent) to the very highest levels of hsCRP. Crude RRs for those with baseline hsCRP levels of <0.5, 0.5 to <1.0, 1.0 to <2.0, 2.0 to <3.0, 3.0 to <4.0, 4.0 to <5.0, 5.0 to <10.0, 10.0 to <20.0, and greater than or equal to20.0 mg/L were 1.0, 2.2, 2.5, 3.1, 3.7, 4.2, 4.9, 6.3, and 7.6, respectively (P for trend <0.001). After adjustment for FRS, these risks were 1.0, 1.6, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, and 3.1 (P for trend <0.001). All risk estimates remained significant in analyses stratified by FRS and after control for diabetes. Of the total cohort, 15.1% had hsCRP <0.50 mg/L, and 5.4% had hsCRP >10.0 mg/L. Conclusions-Both very low (<0.5 mg/L) and very high (>10 mg/L) levels of hsCRP provide important prognostic information on cardiovascular risk. hsCRP is clinically useful for risk prediction across a full range of values and across a full range of FRS.

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