4.7 Article

Plasma phospholipid saturated fatty acids and heart failure risk in the physicians' health study

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 819-823

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.02.006

关键词

Saturated fatty acids; Palmitic acid; Heart failure

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01HL092946, HL092946S1]
  2. Office of Dietary Supplement, Bethesda, MD
  3. National Cancer Institute [CA-34944, CA-40360, CA-097193]
  4. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD [HL-26490, HL- 34595]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & aims: Previous studies have suggested that some plasma phospholipid saturated fatty acids (SFA) are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease and hypertension, major risk factors for heart failure (HF). However, little is known about the association between SFA and HF. This study examines associations of individual plasma phospholipid SFA with HF risk in US male physicians. Methods: The current ancillary study used a prospective nested matched case control design to select 788 cases of incident HF and 788 controls. Plasma phospholipid SFAs were measured using gas chromatography. HF was self-reported on follow-up questionnaires and validated by review of medical records in a subsample. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate relative risks. Results: Mean age was 58.7 +/- 8.0 years. One standard deviation higher plasma phospholipid 16:0 was associated with an odds ratio (95% Cl) of 1.20 (1.04, 1.38) controlling for established HF risk factors and other SFAs (p = 0.042). However, this association was not significant after Bonferroni correction (p > 0.008). We did not observe associations between other SFAs (14:0, 15:0, 18:0, 20:0, or 22:0) and HF risk (all p for trend > 0.05). Conclusions: Our data suggested no association between plasma phospholipid SFAs and HF in US male physicians. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. 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