4.4 Article

Is the variation in monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio a predictor of major cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndrome?

出版社

ASSOC BRAS DIVULG CIENTIFICA
DOI: 10.1590/1414-431X2022e12410

关键词

Monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio; Coronary artery disease; Acute myocardial infarction; Unstable angina; Major cardiovascular events

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate whether the monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (MHR) variation is a predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The results showed that the MHR variation is an independent predictor of MACE after ACS, suggesting it as a potential marker for residual cardiovascular risk.
In clinical practice, we need to develop new tools to identify the residual cardiovascular risk after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This study aimed to evaluate whether the monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (MHR) variation (AMHR) obtained during hospital admission (MHR1) and repeated in the first outpatient evaluation (MHR2) is a predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after ACS. One hundred ninety-one patients admitted for ACS were prospectively included. The AMHR was calculated by subtracting MHR1 from MHR2. Patients were followed for 166 +/- 38 days in which the occurrence of MACE was observed. The best cutoff for AMHR was zero (0), and individuals were divided into two groups: AMHR<0 (n=113) and AMHRX0 (n=78). The presence of MACE was higher in the AMHRX0 (22%) than in the AMHR<0 (7%), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74-8.99; P=0.0004). After adjusting for confounders, AMHRX0 remained an independent MACE predictor with an adjusted HR of 3.13 (95%CI: 1.35-7.26, P=0.008). In conclusion, our study showed that AMHR was an independent MACE predictor after ACS. Thus, AMHR is a potential marker of residual cardiovascular risk after 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

4.4
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