4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Association of high serum creatinine and anemia increases the risk of coronary events: Results from the prospective community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 2919-2925

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1097/01.ASN.0000092138.65211.71

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease or anemia. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the association between renal function and risk of CHD is modified by hemoglobin (Hgb) status. Analyses were based on data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, a community-based study of risk factors for CHD in middle-aged people. People with known CHD at baseline were excluded from the analysis. Participants were followed for 9 yr for the occurrence of CHD. Anemia was defined as Hgb < 13 g/dl in men and < 12 g/dl in women. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the relative risk (RR) of CHD occurrence according to Hgb status, after adjusting for other risk factors (demographics, lipids, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, body mass index, and carotid intima-media thickness). A total of 13,329 participants were included. The interaction between Hgb concentration and serum creatinine (Scr) was significant (P = 0.02). Among people with anemia, a Scr greater than or equal to 1.2 mg/dl in women or greater than or equal to 1.5 mg/dl in men was associated with a higher risk of CHD (RR, 2.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.42 to 5.28) than those with normal Scr. In contrast, among those without anemia, this association was not noted (RR, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.67). In conclusion, this study indicates that high Scr is associated with almost a threefold risk of CHD among middle-aged people with anemia, whereas no increased risk is found in people with high Scr in the absence of anemia.

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