4.7 Article

Sex difference in the association of the triglyceride glucose index with obstructive coronary artery disease

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-36135-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insulin resistance is associated with cardiovascular disease in non-diabetic patients. The triglyceride-glucose index is a surrogate marker for insulin resistance. A higher TyG index is associated with an increased risk of obstructive coronary artery disease, especially in non-diabetic women. Further studies are needed to validate these findings.
Insulin resistance (IR) is associated with cardiovascular disease in non-diabetic patients. The triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index, incorporating serum glucose and insulin concentrations, is a surrogate insulin resistance marker. We investigated its association with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and sex differences therein. Patients with stable angina pectoris requiring invasive coronary angiography between January 2010 and December 2018 were enrolled. They were divided into two groups according to TyG index. Two interventional cardiologists diagnosed obstructive CAD by angiography review. Demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. Relative to lower index, patients with higher (>= 8.60) TyG index had higher BMIs and more prevalent hypertension, diabetes, and elevated lipid profiles [total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), triglycerides (TG), fasting plasma glucose (FPG)]. Higher TyG index increased women's obstructive CAD risk after multivariate adjustment (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.08-4.26, p = 0.02) in non-diabetic populations compared with men. No sex difference was found for diabetic patients. Higher TyG index significantly increased the obstructive CAD risk, overall and for non-diabetic women. Larger-scale studies are needed to confirm our findings.

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

4.7
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