4.1 Article

Low serum level of sirtuin 1 predicts coronary atherosclerosis plaques during computed tomography angiography among an asymptomatic cohort

期刊

CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
卷 30, 期 8, 页码 621-625

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000804

关键词

computed tomography angiography; coronary atherosclerosis plaques; coronary artery disease; sirtuin 1; type 2 diabetes mellitus

资金

  1. Health Commission of Hebei Province Youth Scientific and Technological Subjects [20191270]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Whether in asymptomatic populations levels of serum sirtuin 1 (Sirt1) are associated with coronary atherosclerosis plaque characteristics remains unclear. This article aims to evaluate the possibility of Sirt1 serum levels predicting high-risk coronary plaques revealed through computed tomography angiography (CTA). Methods: The current cross-sectional investigation was performed on patients from non high-risk plaque (HRP) group (control group) as well as HRP group. CTA was conducted and the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) was generated each patient. Serum Sirt1 level was determined through ELISA. Univariate analysis and receiver-operating characteristic curve were used to examine the role of Sirt1 to predict HRP. Results: Lower Sirt1 serum levels were observed in patients in the HRP group in comparison with those in the control group. Gender, hyperlipidemia, age, the total cholesterol to high-density lipoproteincholesterol (HDL-C) ratio, HDL-C, apolipoprotein B and Sirt1 displayed independent association with HRP as revealed by the univariate analysis. Area under curve of the univariate model for HRP was 0.848 (95% confidence interval: 0.798-0.899); 75.4% specificity, 75.2% sensitivity, the negative predictive value was 83.0%, and the positive predictive value was 66.2%. Conclusion: Low serum level of Sirt1 predicted HRP in individuals with low-intermediate FRS, implying that Sirt1 may play a predictive role in the plaque screening before coronary CTA.

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