4.4 Article

Plasma atherogenic indices are independent predictors of slow coronary flow

期刊

BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-021-02432-5

关键词

Coronary slow flow; Frame count; Atherogenic index of plasma; Castelli risk indices; Coronary intervention; Cardiovascular risk factors; Coronary artery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that AIP and CRI-II levels are independent predictors of CSF, with optimal cutoff values for predicting CSF occurrence. This suggests a potential role for atherogenic dyslipidemia in the pathophysiology of CSF, warranting further prospective studies in larger patient cohorts.
Background Although the pathophysiology of coronary slow flow (CSF) has not been fully elucidated, emerging data increasingly support potential role for subclinical diffuse atherosclerosis in the etiology of CSF. We aimed to investigate relationship between atherogenic indices and CSF. Methods 130 patients with CSF diagnosed according to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI)-frame count (TFC) method and 130 controls who had normal coronary flow (NCF) were included in this retrospective study. Atherogenic indices (atherogenic index of plasma [AIP], Castelli risk indices I and II [CRI-I and II]) were calculated using conventional lipid parameters. Results The logistic regression analyses demonstrated that AIP (OR, 5.463; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.357-21.991; p = 0.017) and CRI-II (OR, 1.624; 95% CI, 1.138-2.319; p = 0.008) were independent predictors of CSF. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the optimal cutoff value to predict the occurrence of CSF was 0.66 for AIP (sensitivity, 59%; specificity, 73%; area under curve [AUC], 0.695; p < 0.001) and 3.27 for CRI-II (sensitivity, 60%; specificity, 79%; AUC, 0.726; p < 0.001). Conclusions AIP and CRI-II levels were independent predictors of CSF. Prospective studies in larger cohorts of patients may elucidate the role of atherogenic dyslipidemia in the pathophysiology of CSF.

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

4.4
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