2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.repce.2012.11.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does metabolic syndrome predict significant angiographic coronary artery disease?

Abstract: Introduction: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is an independent predictor of acute cardiovascular events. However, few studies have addressed the relationship between MS and stable angiographic coronary artery disease (CAD), which has a different pathophysiological mechanism. We aimed to study the independent predictors for significant CAD, and to analyze the impact of MS (by the AHA/NHLBI definition) on CAD. Methods: We prospectively included 300 patients, mean age 64 ± 9 years, 59% male, admitted for elective corona… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Patients with MS are at increased risk of cardiovascular events (2-fold increase in cardiovascular outcomes, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke, and a 1.5-fold increase in all-cause mortality) [3,4]. However, there is still a controversy about the association of MS with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) [5][6][7][8][9][10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patients with MS are at increased risk of cardiovascular events (2-fold increase in cardiovascular outcomes, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke, and a 1.5-fold increase in all-cause mortality) [3,4]. However, there is still a controversy about the association of MS with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) [5][6][7][8][9][10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But, logistic regression analysis disproved its effect on CAD. MetS though associated with CAD, it has not been found consistent [17,18]. Smoking was found significant (Table-2: p=0.02) in bivariate analysis, but ultimately was found insignificant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%