Is serum FGF-23 associated with subclinic atherosclerosis in patients with AA amyloidosis?
Le résumé fourni par la source
Objective: Amyloid A (AA) amyloidosis is the most prevalent form of systemic amyloidosis, and is a serious condition characterized by protein-misfolding. Cardiovascular involvement is known to be a significant manifestation of the disease and common carotid artery intima-media thickness (CIMT) assessment is one of the well-recognized tools for identification of subclinical atherosclerosis. It was reported that FGF-23 may be a significant factor associated with atherosclerosis development in patients with AA amyloidosis, as well as being an independent risk factor for increased CIMT. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether elevated FGF-23 levels might be associated with CIMT levels in AA amyloidosis patients. Method: We studied 63 patients with AA amyloidosis and 29 aged-matched healthy controls. All subjects’ demographic data were recorded and the following parameters were measured: erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, creatinine, urea, albumin, calcium, phosphate, parathyroid hormone, FGF-23, eGFR, CIMT, blood pressure and BMI. Results: CIMT levels were significantly higher in AA amyloidosis patients compared to the control group (p<0.001). However, serum FGF-23 levels were similar (p=0.110). CIMT was correlated with patient age (r=0.471, p<0.001), but serum FGF-23 was not associated with CIMT in patients with amyloidosis (r=0.031, p=0.807). Conclusion: Although our results suggest a lack of association between FGF-23 levels and CIMT in patients with AA amyloidosis.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Is serum FGF-23 associated with subclinic atherosclerosis in patients with AA amyloidosis?
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2019
- Éditeur
- Kare Publishing
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.