Opium is an important risk factor for coronary artery ectasia; a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Introduction Coronary artery ectasia (CAE) is a rare cardiovascular disorder with unknown mechanisms and related risk factors. The roles played by homocysteine in induction of cardiovascular diseases have also been documenetd previously. This project was designed to explore the roles played by opium in the pathogenesis of CAE disorder and the roles of the plausible risk factors on the homocysteine and other biochemical factors.Material and methods This cross-sectional study was performed on the 46 patients with CAE, 30 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and 42 cases without CAE and CAD (controls). Demographic data and information regarding opium consuming and also smoking were collected using standard chek list. Serum levels of homocysteine, creatinin (Cr), urea, fasting blood glucose (FBG), low density lipoprotein (LDL), high density lipoprotein (HDL), triglyceride (TG) and cholestrol (Chol) were determined.Results Statistical analysis revealed that opium consumers were significantly higher in CAD and CAE patients when compared to healthy controls. Opium increased serum levels of Cr in the normal controls, and decreased HDL in the CAD patients. Homocysteine serum levels were not altered among the groups.Discussion Due to the results it appears that opium may be considered as a risk factor for either CAE or CAD independent of homocysteine and also may be the risk factor for kidney diseases in the normal population.

Association of Opium Consumption and Coronary Artery Ectasia: A Propensity Score-matched Study

“…The number of participants in their study was much less than ours and it can be one of the considerations to explain the different results. Moreover, in that study, they did not adjust other CVD risk factors including age, sex, DM, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, family history of CAD, and cigarette smoking between cases and controls while we used PSM to control the effect of any confounders and it could be another reason to explain the difference (23).…”