Background Image
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  56 / 76 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 56 / 76 Next Page
Page Background

CARDIOVASCULAR JOURNAL OF AFRICA • Volume 29, No 3, May/June 2018

186

AFRICA

In a Nigerian study by Okeahialam

et al

.

17

in 70 hypertensives,

70 diabetics and 71 non-diabetic non-hypertensive controls

aged 30 years and older at a teaching hospital in north-central

Nigeria, the prevalence of CA in their population was 47.5% for

diabetics, 48.9% for hypertensives and 36.5% for the controls.

They did not find any significant difference in CIMT between

the subjects with hypertension and DM and the controls,

although they found a reasonable degree of CA in their controls.

Therefore they suggested that there is a need to evaluate for other

traditional risk factors other than hypertension and DM, and for

novel emerging risk factors.

In our cross-sectional study, we evaluated for more traditional

risk factors than just hypertension and DM, and our subjects had

at least one CVRF. Comparing our subjects to controls who had

no traditional CVRFs may have shown significant differences

in CIMT between the two groups, as has been demonstrated by

other researchers.

6,7

In the present study, CIMT increased with advancing age

until the seventh decade, after which it decreased. However, the

difference between CIMT in the seventh and eighth decades

was not statistically significant on

post hoc

analysis (

p

>

0.05).

Also, 70.1 and 84.6% of subjects with increased CIMT and CP,

respectively, were

50 years of age. Ayoola

et al.

,

18

in a previous

study in the same location as ours in 200 hypertensives with a

mean age of 58.8

±

11.6 years and 100 controls with a mean age of

Table 3. Association between risk factor variables and increased CIMT

Variable

Normal CIMT

(%)

Increased CIMT

(%)

Bivariate model

Logistic regression model

Nagelkerke

R

2

=

0.787

UOR

95% CI

p

-value

AOR

95% CI

p-

value

Age

50 years

21 (28.0)

62 (71.3)

6.38

3.2– 12.66

<

0.001

0.048

0.01–0.23

<

0.001

Gender (male)

36 (48.0)

44 (50.6)

1.11

0.598–2.056

0.744

NI

NI

NI

Obesity

10 (13.3)

46 (52.9)

7.293

3.317–16.032

<

0.001

0.163

0.03–0.77

0.022

Hypertension

10 (13.3)

70 (80.5)

26.77

11.43–62.68

<

0.001

0.035

0.008–0.149

<

0.001

Diabetes mellitus

10 (13.3)

36 (41.4)

4.59

2.08–10.12

<

0.001

0.20

0.037–1.07

0.060

Dyslipidaemia

32 (42.7)

79 (90.8)

13.27

5.62–31.32

<

0.001

0.03

0.02–0.428

0.009

Abnormal TC

15 (20.0)

48 (55.2)

4.92

2.43–9.98

<

0.001

0.99

0.17–5.60

0.987

Abnormal TG

23 (30.7)

66 (75.9)

7.11

3.55–14.23

<

0.001

11.68

1.12–122.1

0.040

Abnormal LDL-C

24 (32.0)

57 (65.5)

4.04

2.09–7.78

<

0.001

3.92

0.51–30.12

0.190

Abnormal HDL-C

3 (4.0)

17 (19.5)

5.83

1.64–20.77

0.003

0.83

0.11–6.39

0.859

Smoking

4 (5.3)

21 (24.1)

5.65

1.84–17.32

0.001

0.146

0.02–1.08

0.059

Alcohol

7 (9.3)

38 (43.7)

7.53

3.11–18.30

<

0.001

0.067

0.01–0.36

0.002

Chronic kidney disease

8 (10.7)

24 (27.6)

3.19

1.34–7.62

0.007

0.729

0.14–3.71

0.703

CIMT: carotid intima–media thickness, CI: confidence interval, TC: total cholesterol, TG: triglycerides, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, HDL-C: high-

density lipoprotein cholesterol, UOR: unadjusted odds ratio, AOR: adjusted odds ratio.

Table 4. Association between risk factor variables and presence of plaques

Variable

Plaque (

)

(%)

Plaque (+)

(%)

Bivariate model

Logistic regression model

Nagelkerke

R

2

=

0.380

UOR

95% CI

p

-value

AOR

95% CI

p

-value

Age

50 years

61 (44.9)

22 (84.6)

6.76

2.21– 20.67

<

0.001

0.21

0.06–0.73

0.014

Gender (male)

67 (49.3)

13 (50.0)

1.03

0.45–2.38

0.945

NI

NI

NI

Obesity

40 (29.4)

16 (61.5)

3.84

1.61–9.18

0.002

0.50

0.18–1.41

0.191

Hypertension

57 (41.9)

23 (88.5)

10.63

3.04–37.10

<

0.001

0.30

0.008–1.21

0.041

Diabetes mellitus

35 (25.7)

11 (42.3)

2.12

0.89–5.04

0.086

NI

NI

NI

Dyslipidaemia

86 (63.2)

25 (96.2)

14.54

1.92–110.55

0.001

0.18

0.01–2.81

0.220

Abnormal TC

44 (32.4)

19 (73.1)

5.68

2.22–14.50

<

0.001

0.22

0.05–1.08

0.063

Abnormal TG

67 (49.3)

22 (84.6)

5.66

1.85–17.30

0.001

1.42

0.27–7.60

0.681

Abnormal LDL-C

63 (46.3)

18 (69.2)

2.61

1.06–6.40

0.032

2.57

0.52–12.70

0.248

Abnormal HDL-C

13 (9.6)

7 (26.9)

3.49

1.23–9.84

0.014

0.64

0.19–2.13

0.468

Smoking

20 (14.7)

5 (19.2)

1.38

0.47–4.09

0.558

NI

NI

NI

Alcohol

34 (25.0)

11 (42.3)

2.20

0.92–5.25

0.071

NI

NI

NI

Chronic kidney disease

24 (17.6)

8 (30.8)

2.07

0.81–5.32

0.124

NI

NI

NI

Plaque (–): plaque absent, plaque (+): plaque present, CI: confidence interval, TC: total cholesterol, TG: triglyceride, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol,

HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, UOR: unadjusted odds ratio, AOR: adjusted odds ratio.

CV risk burden

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Average CCA IMT

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

Fig 1.

Box plots showing the relationship between CIMT and

the number of CVRFs.