4.8 Article

Cystatin C - A novel predictor of outcome in suspected or confirmed non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 110, 期 16, 页码 2342-2348

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000145166.44942.E0

关键词

angina; cystatins; kidney; myocardial infarction; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Patients with suspected or confirmed non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) constitute a large and heterogeneous group. Measurements of renal function such as serum creatinine and estimation of creatinine clearance carry independent prognostic information in this population. Cystatin C is a new and better marker of renal function than creatinine. The aim was therefore to evaluate the prognostic value of cystatin C in this population. Methods and Results - Cystatin C was analyzed on admission in 726 patients admitted because of symptoms suggestive of an acute coronary syndrome and no ST-segment elevations. Patients were followed up with regard to death and myocardial infarction for a median of 40 and 6 months, respectively. The median cystatin C level was 1.00 mg/L (25th to 75th percentile, 0.83 to 1.24 mg/L). The risk of death during follow-up increased with increasing levels of cystatin C. In the group with non-ST-elevation ACS, patients in the second, third, and fourth quartiles had a relative risk of subsequent death of 1.8 (95% CI, 0.6 to 5.3), 3.2 ( 95% CI, 1.2 to 8.5), and 11.7 ( 95% CI, 4.7 to 29.3) compared with the lowest quartile. In Cox regression models including well-known predictors of outcome, cystatin C level was independently associated with mortality but not with the risk of subsequent myocardial infarction. In a comparison of the markers of renal function in receiver-operating curve analyses, cystatin C had the best ability to discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors. Conclusions - A single measurement of cystatin C will substantially improve the early risk stratification of patients with suspected or confirmed non-ST-elevation 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

4.8
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