Microalbuminuria and its association with subclinical atherosclerosis in the mexican mestizo population:

the GEA study 

Autores: Medina Urrutia Aida, Juárez Rojas Juan Gabriel, Posadas Sánchez Rosalinda, Jorge Galarza Esteban, Cardoso Saldaña Guillermo, Vargas Alarcón Gilberto, Martínez Alvarado Rocío, Posadas Romero Carlos

Resumen

Background: Microalbuminuria is an early marker of atherosclerosis. Ethnic differences for both conditions have been reported. We studied microalbuminuria prevalence and its association with coronary artery calcification as an early aterosclerosis marker in a Mexican-Mestizo population free of diabetes and hypertension (healthy), as well as in hypertensive and diabetic subjects. Methods: In 1,472 adults (53.3 + 9.4 years old, 50.3% women), anthropometric measurements, fasting blood glucose, and lipid profile were determined. A spot urine sample was used to quantify the albumin-to-creatinine ratio and to define microalbuminuria (20 200 mg/g in men, and 30-300 mg/g in women). A coronary artery calcification score was obtained by electron-beam computed tomography and subclinical atherosclerosis was defined as a score > 0. Results: Overall microalbuminuria prevalence was 9.3% (5.4% in healthy, 11.6% in obese, 12% in hypertensive, and 25% in diabetic subjects). Compared to “healthy” subjects without microalbuminuria, those with microalbuminuria had a ∼3-fold higher prevalence of coronary artery calcification > 0, while normal-high albumin-to-creatinine ratio (OR: 1.8; p < 0.05) and microalbuminuria (OR: 2.6; p < 0.001) was independently associated with coronary artery calcification > 0 only among diabetic subjects. Conclusions: Microalbuminuria and high-normal albumin-to-creatinine ratio were independently associated with subclinical atherosclerosis, suggesting that they may confer a higher risk of future cardiovascular events.

Palabras clave: Coronary artery calcium microalbuminuria subclinical atherosclerosis.

2016-12-15   |   419 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 68 Núm.5. Septiembre-Octubre 2016 Pags. 262-268 Rev Invest Clin 2016; 68(5)