4.6 Article

Impaired coronary flow reserve in patients with metabolic syndrome

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 201, 期 1, 页码 112-116

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2008.02.016

关键词

Coronary flow reserve; Metabolic syndrome; Microvascular function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular events. Coronary flow reserve (CFR). as determined by transthoracic echocardiography, is an indicator of microvascular function. In this study, we sought to determine whether CFR is impaired in patients with MetS without clinical coronary heart disease. Methods: Thirty-three patients with MetS (mean age, 67 +/- 8 years) and 35 age- and sex-matched controls were studied prospectively. Transthoracic two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography was performed on all patients. Baseline and hyperemic (after dipyridamole infusion) coronary flow rates were measured using pulsed Doppler echocardiography. CFR was calculated as the ratio of hyperemic to baseline diastolic peak velocities. Results: There was no difference with regard to baseline systolic and diastolic coronary flow rates in patients with MetS compared with control subjects (19.9 +/- 3.1 cm/s vs. 19.7 +/- 2.9cm/s, P > .05; and 27.7 +/- 4.2 cm/s vs. 27.1 +/- 3.6cm/s, P > .05, respectively). Hyperemic diastolic flow and CFR were significantly lower in patients with MetS than in controls (61.7 +/- 9.4cm/s vs. 70.2 +/- 9.2cm/s. P < .0001; and 2.2 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.4, P = .001, respectively). In a logistic regression analysis that included age. sex, body mass index, hypertension, and dyslipidemia and MetS, MetS was the only predictor of a CFR < 2.5 (P = .007, OR = 6.1, 95% CI: 1.6-23.3). Conclusion: In conclusion, CFR is impaired in patients with MetS suggesting that coronary microvascular dysfunction. an early finding of atherosclerosis, is present in this patient Population. Metabolic syndrome is associated with a CFR < 2.5. (C) 2008 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