4.7 Article

Ethnic differences in coronary atherosclerosis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01748-X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The study was done to evaluate whether ethnic differences exist in the prevalence of coronary artery calcification (CAC), and to determine whether differences in calcification correlate with the degree of coronary obstruction. BACKGROUND Electron beam tomography (EBT) can be used to quantitate the amount of CAC and assist in prognostication of future cardiac events. It is unclear whether ethnic differences in coronary mortality are related to differences in the prevalence of coronary obstruction and CAC. METHODS A total of 782 symptomatic subjects under-went both EBT and angiography. A 50% luminal narrowing defined an angiographic obstruction. RESULTS We observed substantial ethnic differences in prevalence of both CAC and angiographic stenosis. In whites (n = 453), prevalence of CAC (score >0) was 84%, and significant obstruction on angiogram was 71%. Compared with whites, blacks (n = 108) had a significantly lower prevalence of CAC (62%, p < 0.001) and angiographic disease (49%, p < 0.01). Hispanics (n = 177) also had a lower prevalence of CAC (71%, p < 0.001) and angiographic obstruction (58%, p < 0.01). Asians (n = 44) were not significantly different in regard to CAC (73%, p = 0.06) or angiographic stenosis (64%, p = 0.30). These ethnic differences remained after simultaneously controlling (by use of multiple logistic regression) for age, gender and cardiac risk factors. CONCLUSIONS As compared with whites, blacks and Hispanics had significantly lower prevalence of CAC and obstructive coronary disease. Ethnic differences in risk-factor profiles do not explain these differences. This study demonstrated that whites have a higher atherosclerotic burden than blacks and Hispanics, independent of risk-factor differences among symptomatic patients referred for angiography. (C) 2002 by the American College of Cardiology.

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

4.7
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