4.6 Article

Association between IL-6 and the extent of coronary atherosclerosis in the veterans affairs diabetes trial (VADT)

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 203, 期 2, 页码 610-614

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2008.07.031

关键词

Inflammatory markers; Type 2 diabetes; Atherosclerosis; Vascular calcification; CAC; AAC

资金

  1. Office of Research and Development, Medical Research Service and Cooperative studies program, Department of Veteran Affairs, NIH [RO1067690, P01 HL076491, P01 HL77107, HL70621]
  2. Kronos Research Institute
  3. American Diabetes Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The aim of the present study was to investigate the association of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2) with the extent of calcified coronary atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Materials and results: This is a cross-sectional study of 306 subjects aged 40 years or older who were enrolled into the veterans affairs diabetes trial (VADT). Calcified coronary atherosclerosis was assessed using electron beam computed tomography scored by the Agatston method. Clinical parameters, traditional cardiovascular risk factors and plasma levels of CRP, IL-6 and Lp-PLA2 were measured at the time of the scan. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores increased stepwise across increasing categories of IL-6, but did not change across increasing categories of CRP and Lp-PLA2. After adjustment for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, IL-6 was significantly associated with CAC scores (p = 0.05). The association between IL-6 and CAC was largely in those with lower (below the median) abdominal artery calcium (AAC) levels (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Despite a generally higher level of systemic inflammation in T2DM, the inflammatory marker IL-6 remained significantly associated with CAC score, particularly in those subjects with lower AAC scores. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

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