Loading…

Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Among Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Infected Patients Without Coronary Calcium

Subjects infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have increased risk for atherosclerosis. Carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) assessed using ultrasound and coronary artery calcium (CAC) detected using computed tomography predict cardiovascular risk in the general population; however...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of cardiology 2012-03, Vol.109 (5), p.742-747
Main Authors: Hsue, Priscilla Y., MD, Ordovas, Karen, MD, Lee, Theodore, MD, Reddy, Gautham, MD, Gotway, Michael, MD, Schnell, Amanda, BA, Ho, Jennifer E., MD, Selby, Van, MD, Madden, Erin, MPH, Martin, Jeffrey N., MD, MPH, Deeks, Steven G., MD, Ganz, Peter, MD, Waters, David D., MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Subjects infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have increased risk for atherosclerosis. Carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) assessed using ultrasound and coronary artery calcium (CAC) detected using computed tomography predict cardiovascular risk in the general population; however, their usefulness and comparability in patients with HIV are less well defined. The purpose of this study was to compare IMT and CAC in the detection of atherosclerosis in subjects with HIV. CAC and IMT were measured in 253 HIV-infected and 58 uninfected adults. Associations among HIV-related factors, traditional risk factors, and CAC and IMT were evaluated. The distribution of IMT among subjects with and without CAC was compared. Among the patients with HIV, 37% had detectable CAC compared to 28% of controls (p = 0.19); 16% of the patients with HIV had CAC >100 compared to 5% of controls (p = 0.03). With either detectable or undetectable CAC, HIV-infected subjects had higher IMT compared to controls (1.02 ± 0.34 vs 0.78 ± 0.12 mm, p
ISSN:0002-9149
1879-1913
DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.10.036