4.3 Article

Intermediate CD14++CD16+ monocyte predicts severe coronary stenosis and extensive plaque involvement in asymptomatic individuals

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
Volume 33, Issue 8, Pages 1223-1236

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-017-1097-z

Keywords

Coronary artery disease; Coronary CT angiography; Coronary plaque; Leukocyte subtypes; Monocyte subsets

Funding

  1. National Taiwan University Hospital [NTUH.100-S1611]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Circulating leukocyte subtypes and monocyte subsets are independent predictors of cardiovascular events. We hypothesized that an increased leukocyte subtype would predict severe coronary stenosis and extensive plaque involvement. We retrospectively analyzed clinical, laboratory, and coronary CT data in a total of 588 asymptomatic adults (69% men; mean age, 57 +/- 9 years) undergoing a general health check-up. Intermediate CD14(++)CD16(+) monocyte count had the strongest association with mixed and calcified plaque scores, whereas the numbers of neutrophils and classical CD14(++)CD16(-) monocytes were significantly associated with non-calcified plaque score. Only high CD14(++)CD16(+) monocyte count (> 12 cells/mu L) significantly predicted extensive plaque involvement [odds ratio 3.16 (95% confidence interval 1.84-5.43), P < 0.001; quartile 4 vs. 1-3] and severe coronary stenosis [3.67 (1.84-7.33), P < 0.001; quartile 4 vs. 1-3] after adjustments for Framingham Risk Score (FRS), metabolic syndrome, and C-reactive protein. The CD14(++)CD16(+) monocyte count, when added to FRS, significantly reclassified 30.4 and 26.7% of the overall and 50.2 and 36.2% of the intermediate-risk population (FRS 6-20%) for predicting extensive plaque involvement and severe coronary stenosis, respectively. Thus, in asymptomatic individuals, intermediate CD14(++)CD16(+) monocyte could independently predict severe CAD and improve risk stratification.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available