Cargando…
Association of mitral annulus calcification, aortic valve calcification with carotid intima media thickness
BACKGROUND: Mitral annular calcification (MAC) and aortic annular calcification (AVC) may represent a manifestation of generalized atherosclerosis in the elederly. Alterations in vascular structure, as indexed by the intima media thickness (IMT), are also recognized as independent predictors of adve...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2004
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC526215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15471552 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-7120-2-19 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Mitral annular calcification (MAC) and aortic annular calcification (AVC) may represent a manifestation of generalized atherosclerosis in the elederly. Alterations in vascular structure, as indexed by the intima media thickness (IMT), are also recognized as independent predictors of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. AIM: To examine the relationship between the degree of calcification at mitral and/or aortic valve annulus and large artery structure (thickness). METHODS: We evaluated 102 consecutive patients who underwent transthoracic echocardiography and carotid artery echoDoppler for various indications; variables measured were: systemic blood pressure (BP), pulse pressure (PP=SBP-DBP), body mass index (BMI), fasting glucose, total, HDL, LDL chlolesterol, triglycerides, cIMT. The patients were divided according to a grading of valvular/annular lesions independent scores based on acoustic densitometry: 1 = annular/valvular sclerosis/calcification absence; 2 = annular/valvular sclerosis; 3 = annular calcification; 4 = annular-valvular calcification; 5 = valvular calcification with no recognition of the leaflets. RESULTS: Patient score was the highest observed for either valvular/annulus. Mean cIMT increased linearly with increasing valvular calcification score, ranging from 3.9 ± 0.48 mm in controls to 12.9 ± 1.8 mm in those subjects scored 5 (p < 0.0001). In the first to fourth quartile of cIMT values the respective maximal percentual of score were: score 1: 76.1%, score 2: 70.1%, score 4: 54.3% and score 5: 69.5% (p > 0.0001). CONCLUSION: MAC and AVC score can identify subgroups of patients with different cIMT values which indicate different incidence and prevalence of systemic artery diseases. This data may confirm MAC-AVC as a useful important diagnostic parameter of systemic atherosclerotic disease. |
---|