4.1 Review

Triglycerides as vascular risk factors: new epidemiologic insights

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN CARDIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 345-350

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HCO.0b013e32832c1284

关键词

cardiovascular disease; epidemiology; risk factors; triglycerides

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [N01-HC-25195, 2K24 HL04334]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Targeting triglycerides as a vascular risk factor is justified because of the role of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in atherogenesis. This review examines recent evidence connecting triglycerides with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the context of advances in insights concerning the pathophysiology, population burden and prognostic impact of fasting versus nonfasting values. Recent findings Cross-sectional surveys indicate that mean triglyceride levels in the United States have increased in recent decades. Although elevated fasting triglycerides are consistently associated with increased CVD risk, adjustment for other risk factors (especially high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)) substantially attenuates this relationship. A recent meta-analysis of 27 prospective studies of western populations reported a triglyceride impact on CVD in both sexes, for both fasting and nonfasting values. Nonfasting triglycerides maintained an independent graded relationship with CVD in fully adjusted analyses, with elevated 4 h postprandial triglyceride imposing a 4.5-fold increment relative to lower levels. Summary Evidence supports a potential role for both fasting and nonfasting triglycerides as vascular risk factors, owing in part to the accompanying burden of atherogenic remnant particles, small dense low-density lipoprotein, reduced HDL-C and a high frequency of accompanying insulin resistance. Triglyceride-associated CVD risk occurs even in patients with low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and lowering both lipids provides more benefit than reducing LDL-C alone.

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

4.1
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