4.2 Article

The correlation of retinol-binding protein-4 and lipoprotein combine index with the prevalence and diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome

期刊

HEART AND VESSELS
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 1494-1501

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00380-020-01627-8

关键词

Acute coronary syndrome; Retinol-binding protein-4; Lipoprotein combine index; Risk factor

资金

  1. Hebei Province Government Science and Technology Agency [17277769D]
  2. 2019 Hebei Provincial Department of Education Graduate Innovation Funding Project [CXZZSS2019133]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Retinol-binding protein-4 (RBP-4) along with the lipid profile plays crucial roles in Acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The study aimed to investigate the correlation of RBP-4, lipoprotein combine index (LCI), and RBP-4 + LCI with ACS. 163 ACS and 77 non-CAD in patients were consecutively enrolled in this study. The serum level of RBP-4 was measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. LCI was calculated using the formula: total cholesterol x triglyceride x low-density lipoprotein cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. RBP-4 >= 4 ng/ml, LCI >= 16 and LCI >= 16 + RBP-4 >= 4 ng/ml were new independent risk factors of ACS, and OR value of LCI >= 16 + RBP-4 >= 4 ng/ml was higher than that of RBP-4 and LCI combined (all p < 0.05). The AUC for LCI + RBP-4 was higher than that for LCI and RBP-4 individually. The risk of high LCI in 1 lesion vessel was greater than those of 2 or >= 3 lesion vessels (all p < 0.05). In 1 lesion vessel or >= 3 lesion vessels group, the risk associated with LCI and RBP-4 combined was higher than the risk of LCI or RBP-4 alone (all p < 0.05). The risk of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking and history of MI increased with numbers of vessels lesion (all p < 0.05). Increase in RBP-4 and LCI values were found to be independent risk factors for ACS, and the risk of the combined rise in LCI and RBP-4 values was higher than LCI or RBP-4 alone. The combined tests of LCI and RBP-4 might be a potential diagnostic marker for ACS.

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

4.2
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