4.6 Article

Prospective study of coronary heart disease vs. HDL2, HDL3, and other lipoproteins in Gofman's Livermore Cohort

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 214, 期 1, 页码 196-202

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2010.10.024

关键词

Lipoprotein; High-density lipoproteins; Risk factors; prevention

资金

  1. Institute of Aging [AG72110]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R03AG032004] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the relationship of lipoprotein subfractions to coronary heart disease (CHD). Methods: Prospective 29.1-year follow-up of 1905 men measured for lipoprotein mass concentrations by analytic ultracentrifugation between 1954 and 1957. Vital status was determined for 97.2% of the cohort. Blinded physician medical record and death certificate review confirmed 179 CHD deaths. Follow-up questionnaires identified 182 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 93 revascularization procedures from 1346 (98.3%) of the surviving cohort and from the next-of-kin of 153 men who died. Results: When adjusted for age, total incident CHD was inversely related to HDL2-mass (P = 0.0001) and HDL3-mass (P = 0.02), and concordantly related to LDL-mass (P< 10(-11)), IDL-mass (P< 10(-7)), and small (P< 10(-7)) and large VLDL-mass concentrations (P = 0.003). The hazard reduction per mg/dl of HDL was greater for HDL2-mass than HDL3-mass (P = 0.04). The lowest quartiles of both HDL2-mass (P = 0.007) and HDL3-mass (P = 0.001) independently predicted total incident CHD when adjusted for traditional risk factors. Risk for premature CHD (<= 65 years old) was significantly greater in men within the lowest HDL2 (P = 0.03) and HDL3 quartiles (P = 0.04) and having higher LDL-mass concentrations (P = 0.001). Serum cholesterol's relationship to incidentCHD(P< 10(-8)) was accounted for by adjustment for LDL-mass concentrations (adjusted P = 0.90). Conclusions: Lipoprotein subfractions differ in their relationship to CHD. 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