OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine whether erectile dysfunction (ED) predicts cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional risk factors. BACKGROUND: Both ED and CVD share pathophysiological mechanisms and often co-occur. It is unknown whether ED improves the prediction of CVD beyond traditional risk factors. METHODS: This was a prospective, population-based study of 1,709 men (of 3,258 eligible) age 40 to 70 years. The ED data were measured by self-report. Subjects were followed for CVD for an average follow-up of 11.7 years. The association between ED and CVD was examined using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The discriminatory capability of ED was examined using C statistics. The reclassification of CVD risk associated with ED was assessed using a method that quantifies net reclassification improvement. RESULTS: Of the prospective population, 1,057 men with complete risk factor data who were free of CVD and diabetes at baseline were included. During follow-up, 261 new cases of CVD occurred. We found ED was associated with CVD incidence controlling for age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.90), age and traditional CVD risk factors (HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.90), as well as age and Framingham risk score (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.88). Despite these significant findings, ED did not significantly improve the prediction of CVD incidence beyond traditional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Independent of established CVD risk factors, ED is significantly associated with increased CVD incidence. Nonetheless, ED does not improve the prediction of who will and will not develop CVD beyond that offered by traditional risk factors. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine whether erectile dysfunction (ED) predicts cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional risk factors. BACKGROUND: Both ED and CVD share pathophysiological mechanisms and often co-occur. It is unknown whether ED improves the prediction of CVD beyond traditional risk factors. METHODS: This was a prospective, population-based study of 1,709 men (of 3,258 eligible) age 40 to 70 years. The ED data were measured by self-report. Subjects were followed for CVD for an average follow-up of 11.7 years. The association between ED and CVD was examined using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The discriminatory capability of ED was examined using C statistics. The reclassification of CVD risk associated with ED was assessed using a method that quantifies net reclassification improvement. RESULTS: Of the prospective population, 1,057 men with complete risk factor data who were free of CVD and diabetes at baseline were included. During follow-up, 261 new cases of CVD occurred. We found ED was associated with CVD incidence controlling for age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.90), age and traditional CVD risk factors (HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.90), as well as age and Framingham risk score (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.88). Despite these significant findings, ED did not significantly improve the prediction of CVD incidence beyond traditional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Independent of established CVD risk factors, ED is significantly associated with increased CVD incidence. Nonetheless, ED does not improve the prediction of who will and will not develop CVD beyond that offered by traditional risk factors. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Phyllis J Goodman; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Carol M Moinpour; Charles A Coltman Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-12-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John B Kostis; Graham Jackson; Raymond Rosen; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Kevin Billups; Arthur L Burnett; Culley Carson; Melvin Cheitlin; Robert Debusk; Vivian Fonseca; Peter Ganz; Irwin Goldstein; Andre Guay; Dimitris Hatzichristou; Judd E Hollander; Adolph Hutter; Stuart Katz; Robert A Kloner; Murray Mittleman; Francesco Montorsi; Piero Montorsi; Ajay Nehra; Richard Sadovsky; Ridwan Shabsigh Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-12-27 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Robert C Hendel; Brian G Abbott; Timothy M Bateman; Ron Blankstein; Dennis A Calnon; Jeffrey A Leppo; Jamshid Maddahi; Matthew M Schumaecker; Leslee J Shaw; R Parker Ward; David G Wolinsky Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Alexander W Pastuszak; Daniel A Hyman; Naveen Yadav; Guilherme Godoy; Larry I Lipshultz; Andre B Araujo; Mohit Khera Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Rodica Pop-Busui; Jim Hotaling; Barbara H Braffett; Patricia A Cleary; Rodney L Dunn; Catherine L Martin; Alan M Jacobson; Hunter Wessells; Aruna V Sarma Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ajay Nehra; Graham Jackson; Martin Miner; Kevin L Billups; Arthur L Burnett; Jacques Buvat; Culley C Carson; Glenn R Cunningham; Peter Ganz; Irwin Goldstein; Andre T Guay; Geoff Hackett; Robert A Kloner; John Kostis; Piero Montorsi; Melinda Ramsey; Raymond Rosen; Richard Sadovsky; Allen D Seftel; Ridwan Shabsigh; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Frederick C W Wu Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Liane J Tinsley; Varant Kupelian; Stephanie A D'Eon; David Pober; Jennifer K Sun; George L King; Hillary A Keenan Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 5.958