Clinical relevance of uric tobacco-specific nitrosamine and severe abdominal aortic calcification in a national survey of the United States

Preprint | 
10.55415/deep-2023-0060.v1
This is not the most recent version. There is anewer versionof this content available.
Fang Wang#*
Department of Cardiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
Department of Cardiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
Jingang Zheng*
Department of Cardiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
Department of Cardiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China

# contributed equally to this work, * Corresponding author


Abstract

Background: This cross-sectional study investigated the relationship between uric tobacco-specific nitrosamine (TSNA), N′-nitrosonornicotine (NNN), and abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) in the United States (US) adults for the first time. 


Methods: The final sample (2,713 participants aged 40 years and older) was obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013–2014. The risk of severe AAC according to uric NNN, dose–response relationship, and threshold effect were analyzed using the multivariate logistic regression models, cubic spline model, and a two-piecewise linear regression model, respectively. 


Results: In the fully adjusted model, the odds ratios (OR) (95% confidence interval, CI) of severe AAC for participants in the high uric NNN group was 2.39 (1.59–3.61) compared with that in the low uric NNN group (P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple covariates, the risk of severe AAC increased 1.515-fold for every 1 ng/dL increase in uric NNN when the concentration of uric NNN was less than 1.354 ng/dL. The association between uric NNN and severe AAC was stable among different subgroups.
Conclusion: In a sample of US civilians, uric NNN levels positively correlated with the risk of severe AAC.


Conclusion: In a sample of US civilians, uric NNN levels positively correlated with the risk of severe AAC.

Keywords
Subject Area
Version History
  • 28 Nov 2023 16:51 Version 1
Scores
 4.25
Rapid Rating Times: 1
· Level of Quality: 4
· Level of Repeatability: 4
· Level of Innovation: 5
· Level of Impact: 4

*Each rating ranges from 0-5

Rapid Rating
Your professional field is different from the direction of this article. Go Settings!
  • Level of Quality
    Is the publication of relevance for the academic community and does it provide important insights? Is the language correct and easy to understand for an academic in the field? Are the figures well displayed and captions properly described? Is the article systematically and logically organized?
    0.0
  • Level of Repeatability
    Is the hypothesis clearly formulated? Is the argumentation stringent? Are the data sound, well-controlled and statistically significant? Is the interpretation balanced and supported by the data? Are appropriate and state-of-the-art methods used?
    0.0
  • Level of Innovation
    Does the work represent a novel approach or new findings in comparison with other publications in the field?
    0.0
  • Level of Impact
    Does the work have potential huge impact to the related research area?
    0.0
Submit

我们使用 cookie 将您与其他用户区分开来, 并在我们的网站上为您提供更好的体验。

关闭此消息以接受 cookie 或了解如何管理您的 cookie 设置。

了解更多关于我们的隐私声明..

goTop