4.7 Review

Are high density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglyceride levels relevant in stroke prevention?

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 199-207

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S0008-6363(01)00383-2

关键词

cerebrovascular disorders; cholesterol; epidemiology; lipoproteins; statins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although statins reduce the risk of non-haemorrhagic strokes and transient ischaemic attacks (TIA), little is known about the efficacy of fibrates. This situation has been partly remedied by the recent publication of two-fibrate based trials - The Veterans Affairs High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial (VAHIT) and the Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention Trial (BIP). In BIP, bezafibrate did not significantly reduce the risk of a cerebrovascular event (CVE). Bezafibrate increased the high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) level by 18% to 40 mg/dl (1.03 mmol/l) and decreased triglyceride (TG) levels by 21% to 115 mg/dl (1.29 mmol/l). In contrast, in VAHIT, gemfibrozil significantly reduced the risk of investigators designated stroke (P=0.04) and TIA (P<0.001). Gemfibrozil increased HDL by 6% to 33 mg/dl (0.85 mmol/l) and decreased TG by 31% to 110 mg/dl (1.25 mmol/l). However, the baseline low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) levels were higher in BIP than in VAHIT (148 versus 111 mg/dl; 3.82 versus 2.87 mmol/l). LDL levels were not markedly altered by treatment in either trial. Fibrates can improve several CVE predictors, like fibrinogen, lipoprotein (a), insulin sensitivity and platelet activity. Furthermore, lowered HDL and/or raised TG levels are associated with an increased risk of a CVE; fibrates are an appropriate treatment for this lipid profile. In conclusion, the evidence suggests that not only total cholesterol and LDL, but also HDL and TG levels predict the risk of a CVE. Statins, fibrates or a combination of these drugs can modify these variables. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.7
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