UNLABELLED: We analyzed the relationship between aortic calcification and two osteoporotic parameters (bone mineral density (BMD) and incident osteoporotic fractures) in 667 ambulatory, elderly women from the Epidemiology of Osteoporosis (EPIDOS) cohort (mean age, 80 years; range, 72-94 years). We did not find any correlation between the aortic calcification score and BMD or osteoporotic fractures. INTRODUCTION: The aging process is associated with osteoporosis and aortic calcification; conditions which may have similar disease mechanisms. However, the relationship between these two settings remains to be elucidated. We analyzed the relationship between aortic calcification and osteoporotic parameters (BMD and incident osteoporotic fractures) in a cohort of ambulatory, elderly women. METHODS: The study included 667 ambulatory women from the EPIDOS cohort (mean age, 80 years; age range, 72-94 years). The baseline examination included bone investigations, a clinical and functional examination, and a comprehensive questionnaire on health status and lifestyle. Semiquantitative methods were used to determine the abdominal aortic calcification score on baseline radiographs. Incident fractures were recorded via postal questionnaires issued every 4 months for about 4 years. RESULTS: Five hundred three women (75%) had aortic calcification. The mean aortic calcification score was 5.5 (median, 4). During the follow-up period, 186 (28%) women reported one or more incident osteoporotic fractures. We did not find any correlation between the aortic calcification score on one hand and the BMD or the occurrence of incident osteoporotic fractures on the other. Only age and systolic blood pressure were found to be independently associated with the aortic calcification score. Osteoporotic fractures were independently associated with age and BMD. CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis and aortic calcification appear to be independent processes in a cohort of ambulatory, elderly women. However, potential confounding factors may be present and prospective studies are needed to investigate this situation further.
UNLABELLED: We analyzed the relationship between aortic calcification and two osteoporotic parameters (bone mineral density (BMD) and incident osteoporotic fractures) in 667 ambulatory, elderly women from the Epidemiology of Osteoporosis (EPIDOS) cohort (mean age, 80 years; range, 72-94 years). We did not find any correlation between the aortic calcification score and BMD or osteoporotic fractures. INTRODUCTION: The aging process is associated with osteoporosis and aortic calcification; conditions which may have similar disease mechanisms. However, the relationship between these two settings remains to be elucidated. We analyzed the relationship between aortic calcification and osteoporotic parameters (BMD and incident osteoporotic fractures) in a cohort of ambulatory, elderly women. METHODS: The study included 667 ambulatory women from the EPIDOS cohort (mean age, 80 years; age range, 72-94 years). The baseline examination included bone investigations, a clinical and functional examination, and a comprehensive questionnaire on health status and lifestyle. Semiquantitative methods were used to determine the abdominal aortic calcification score on baseline radiographs. Incident fractures were recorded via postal questionnaires issued every 4 months for about 4 years. RESULTS: Five hundred three women (75%) had aortic calcification. The mean aortic calcification score was 5.5 (median, 4). During the follow-up period, 186 (28%) women reported one or more incident osteoporotic fractures. We did not find any correlation between the aortic calcification score on one hand and the BMD or the occurrence of incident osteoporotic fractures on the other. Only age and systolic blood pressure were found to be independently associated with the aortic calcification score. Osteoporotic fractures were independently associated with age and BMD. CONCLUSIONS:Osteoporosis and aortic calcification appear to be independent processes in a cohort of ambulatory, elderly women. However, potential confounding factors may be present and prospective studies are needed to investigate this situation further.
Authors: Rukshana C Shroff; Rosamund McNair; Nichola Figg; Jeremy N Skepper; Leon Schurgers; Ashmeet Gupta; Melanie Hiorns; Ann E Donald; John Deanfield; Lesley Rees; Catherine M Shanahan Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kenneth R Wilund; Emily J Tomayko; Ellen M Evans; Kijin Kim; Muhammad R Ishaque; Bo Fernhall Journal: Metabolism Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 8.694
Authors: Elizabeth J Samelson; L Adrienne Cupples; Kerry E Broe; Marian T Hannan; Christopher J O'Donnell; Douglas P Kiel Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Pawel Szulc; Terri Blackwell; Douglas P Kiel; John T Schousboe; Jane Cauley; Teresa Hillier; Marc Hochberg; Nicolas Rodondi; Brent C Taylor; Dennis Black; Steven Cummings; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: Bone Date: 2015-06-24 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Pawel Szulc; Terri Blackwell; John T Schousboe; Douglas C Bauer; Peggy Cawthon; Nancy E Lane; Steven R Cummings; Eric S Orwoll; Dennis M Black; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Ahmed L Fathala; Sami Alkulaybi; Abdulrahman Khawaji; Abdelghafour Alomari; Ahmed Almuhaideb Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 1.526