4.3 Article

The relationship between triglyceride/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio and coronary slow-flow phenomenon

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-021-02387-w

关键词

Coronary slow-flow phenomenon; Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction frame count; Triglyceride; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that a high TG/HDL-C ratio is associated with CSFP and may be a useful biomarker for predicting CSFP and its severity.
In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between high triglyceride (TG)/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio and coronary slow flow phenomenon (CSFP) in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography for suspected coronary artery disease. This prospective study included a total of 84 CSFP patients and 83 controls with normal coronary flow, as evidenced by coronary angiography. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) frame count (TFC) was used to measure the coronary blood flow velocity. The lipid profiles were analyzed and TG/HDL-C ratio were calculated dividing absolute TG levels by absolute HDL-C levels in peripheral blood. The median TG/HDL-C ratio was higher in the CSFP group than the control group (3.4 [2.6 to 4.9] vs. 2.3 [1.8 to 3], respectively; p < 0.001). The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that TG/HDL-C ratio was an independent predictor of CSFP (odds ratio [OR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.59-2.32; p = 0.001) and TG/HDL-C ratio was positively correlated with the TFC in the CSFP group (r = 0.311, p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of TG/HDL-C for the diagnosis of CSFP was 0.73 (95% CI 0.65-0.81; p < 0.001). If a cut-off value of 2.75 was used, higher levels of TG/HDL-C ratio could predict the presence of CSFP with 72% sensitivity and 71% specificity. Our study results suggest that TG/HDL-C ratio is associated with CSFP and may be a useful biomarker for predicting CSFP and its severity.

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

4.3
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