4.7 Article

Prospective study of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein as a determinant of mortality: Results from the MONICA/KORA Augsburg cohort study, 1984-1998

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 54, 期 2, 页码 335-342

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.100271

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP), an exquisitely sensitive systemic marker of inflammation, has emerged. as an independent predictor of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Because other chronic diseases are also associated with an inflammatory response, we sought to assess the association of high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) with total and cause-specific mortality in a large cohort of middle-aged men. METHODS: We measured hsCRP at baseline in 3620 middle-aged men, randomly drawn from 3 samples of the general population in the Augsburg area (Southern Germany) in 1984-85, 1989-90, and 1994-95. Outcome was defined as all deaths, fatal CVD, fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) including sudden cardiac deaths, and cancer deaths. RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 7.1 years, 408 deaths occurred (CVD 196, CHD 129, cancer 127). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, subjects with hsCRP >3 mg/L at baseline showed an almost 2-fold increased risk to die vs those with hsCRP <1 mg/L [hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, 95% CI 1.41-2.52]. HRs were 2.15 (95% CI 1.39-3.34) for fatal CVD, 1.74 (1.04-2.92) for fatal CHD, and 1.65 (1.01-2.68) for cancer mortality. In contrast, neither total nor HDL cholesterol significantly predicted all-cause or cancer mortality, and cholesterol had only modest effects on CVD mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that increased circulating hsCRP concentrations are associated with an increased risk of death from several widespread chronic diseases. Persistently increased hsCRP is a sensitive and valuable nonspecific indicator of an ongoing disease process that deserves serious and careful medical attention. (C) 2007 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

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