Impaired endothelial function in patients with rapidly stabilized unstable angina: Assessment by noninvasive brachial artery ultrasonography

Background:Endothelial dysfunction may contribute to symptoms of instability in patients with acute coronary syndromes. High‐resolution external ultrasound assessment of the brachial artery responses allows noninvasive determination of endothelial function. Hypothesis:This study was conducted to ass...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical cardiology (Mahwah, N.J.) N.J.), 1999-11, Vol.22 (11), p.699-703
Hauptverfasser: Bereziuk, Eulalio, Bolaño, Alberto L., Suarez, Daniel H., Kura, Marta, Esper, Ricardo J., Vilariño, Jorge, Cacharrón, José L., Machado, Rogelio, Ingino, Carlos A., GarcGuiñaz, Carlos A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background:Endothelial dysfunction may contribute to symptoms of instability in patients with acute coronary syndromes. High‐resolution external ultrasound assessment of the brachial artery responses allows noninvasive determination of endothelial function. Hypothesis:This study was conducted to assess endothelial function in patients with unstable angina using a noninvasive technique. Methods:We studied 189 patients who were subdivided into three groups. Group 1:60 apparently healthy subjects with no cardiovascular risk factors or symptoms of coronary artery disease; Group 2: 105 subjects with cardiovascular risk factors—arterial hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, cigarette smoking, diabetes, and obesity, but no evidence of coronary artery disease; and Group 3: 24 patients with unstable angina (chest pain at rest within the 24 h preceding study entry). All patients underwent pre‐ and postischemic brachial artery test evaluation with measurements of internal arterial diameters and blood flow. Results:Results are expressed as percentage change from basal values. Subjects in Groups 1 and 2 showed a diameter increase of 19.1 and 11.9%, respectively, whereas patients in Group 3 showed a diameter change of 1.2% (p < 0.002 and < 0.0001, respectively). Calculated blood flow did not differ significantly in Groups 1 or 2 (74.4 and 56.4%), but was notably lower in Group 3 (18.4%, p
ISSN:0160-9289
1932-8737
DOI:10.1002/clc.4960221104