4.1 Article

Triglyceride-to-HDL cholesterol ratio. Predictive value for CHD severity and new-onset heart failure

期刊

HERZ
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 105-110

出版社

URBAN & VOGEL
DOI: 10.1007/s00059-013-3788-0

关键词

Triglyceride; High-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Coronary heart disease; Coronary angiography; Gensini score

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30900491]
  2. Young Medical Talents Training Program of Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau [XYQ2011011]
  3. Shanghai Technology Innovation Program Basic Research Project [10JC1410502]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. This study aimed to explore the association between the triglyceride-to-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TG/HDL-C) ratio and the severity of coronary heart disease (CHD). It also evaluated the clinical role of the TG/HDL-C ratio in predicting in-hospital CHD events and the long-term prognosis of CHD patients. According to the results of coronary angiography examinations, 317 patients were enrolled in the study and classified into a CHD group (n=233) and a control group (n=84). The TG/HDL-C ratio was calculated at baseline. The CHD group was then further classified into cases of single-branch stenosis (n=79), double-branch stenosis (n=73), and multi-branch stenosis (n=81). The Gensini score was calculated for each group to analyze the relationship between the TG/HDL-C ratio and the severity of CHD. The TG/HDL-C ratio in the CHD group was significantly higher than in the normal group (P < 0.001). The TG/HDL-C ratio was positively correlated with the Gensini score. The ratio was significantly higher in patients with new-onset heart failure than in those without heart failure events (P < 0.05). An average 3-year follow-up showed that the serum TG/HDL-C ratios of patients with adverse events were significantly higher than other patients (P < 0.01). The TG/HDL-C ratio is predictive of the severity of CHD. It could also help predict in-hospital new-onset heart failure incidents of CHD patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据