| Literature DB >> 28143410 |
Jinjin Zhang1, Xianhao Wu2, Peizhen Gao3, Pingping Yan4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of cystatin C (CysC) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) regarding vascular lesions and their severity in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).Entities:
Keywords: Acute coronary syndrome; Correlation study; Glomerular filtration rate; Serum cystatin C
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28143410 PMCID: PMC5282728 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-017-0483-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.298
Baseline clinical baseline characteristic of all patients
| STEMI group ( | NSTEMI group ( | UAP group ( | Control group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 165 (84.42%)** | 29 (82.86%)** | 57 (68.67%) | 20 (51.28%) |
| Female | 412 (15.58%) | 6 (17.14%) | 26 (31.33%) | 19 (48.72%) | |
| Age | 59.19 ± 11.76* | 67.14 ± 10.74 | 64.12 ± 10.36 | 64.59 ± 8.14 | |
| Hypertension | 42 (54.55%) | 25 (71.43%) | 56 (67.47%) | 23 (58.97%) | |
| Diabetes | 20 (25.97%) | 14 (40.00%)* | 25 (30.12%) | 6 (15.38%) | |
| LDL-C | 3.11 ± 1.02** | 3.07 ± 0.91* | 2.65 ± 0.98 | 2.60 ± 0.77 | |
| Serum creatinine | 74.78 ± 19.63 | 82.05 ± 24.91 | 75.55 ± 18.82 | 75.87 ± 19.73 | |
| Cys C | 1.34 ± 0.48 | 1.46 ± 0.58 | 1.26 ± 0.27 | 1.30 ± 0.35 | |
| eGFR | 99.47 ± 35.44 | 84.72 ± 35.42 | 83.03 ± 25.02 | 81.44 ± 23.95 | |
Note: compared with control group
*P < 0.05
**P < 0.01
Variable comparison among different lesion groups
| Index | Control ( | S ( | D ( | M ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.0153 | ||||
| F | 19 (48.72%) | 20 (21.98%) | 16 (23.88%) | 8 (21.62%) | |
| M | 20 (51.28%) | 71 (78.02%) | 51 (76.12%) | 29 (78.38%) | |
| Age | 63.59 ± 9.14 | 62.40 ± 10.56 | 61.67 ± 12.12 | 66.49 ± 10.70 | 0.1591 |
| Hypertension | 23 (58.97%) | 53 (58.24%) | 40 (59.70%) | 30 (81.08%) | 0.0670 |
| LDL-C | 2.60 ± 0.77 | 2.74 ± 1.07 | 3.10 ± 0.91 | 2.97 ± 1.03 | 0.0449 |
| Diabetics | 6 (15.38%) | 27 (29.67%) | 21 (31.34%) | 11 (29.73%) | 0.2608 |
| LVEF | - | 59.16 ± 5.17a | 60.60 ± 5.67b | 58.05 ± 8.00 | 0.0644 |
| Killip classification | 0.1090 | ||||
| Grade I | - | 31 (77.50%)c | 32 (86.49%)d | 15 (68.18%)e | |
| Grade II | - | 8 (20.00%)c | 3 (8.11%)d | 2 (9.09%)e | |
| Grade III | - | 1 (2.50%)c | 2 (5.41%)d | 4 (18.18%)e | |
| Grade IV | - | 0 (0.00%)c | 0 (0.00%)d | 1 (4.55%)e | |
| Cys C | 1.30 ± 0.35 | 1.27 ± 0.30 | 1.34 ± 0.44 | 1.51 ± 0.59 | 0.0296 |
| Scr | 75.87 ± 19.73 | 73.29 ± 14.82 | 77.87 ± 21.31 | 80.84 ± 29.00 | 0.2370 |
| eGFR | 81.44 ± 23.95 | 92.31 ± 31.02 | 90.05 ± 32.50 | 83.56 ± 34.39 | 0.2146 |
Note:
athe cases with valid LVEF data in group S were 88 cases
bthe cases with valid LVEF data in group D were 62 cases
cthe cases with valid Killip classification data in group S were 40 cases
dthe cases with valid Killip classification data in group D were 37 cases
ethe cases with valid Killip classification data in group M were 22 cases
Univariate logistic regression analysis of different variables with vascular lesions
| Factor | Coefficient | SD | Statistic |
| OR (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | 0.6362047 | 0.2794 | 2.28 | 0.0230 | 1.8893 (1.0927–3.2667) |
| Age | 0.0080341 | 0.0108 | 0.75 | 0.4560 | 1.0081 (0.9870–1.0296) |
| Hypertension | 0.4309775 | 0.2446 | 1.76 | 0.0780 | 1.5388 (0.9528–2.4851) |
| LDL-C | 0.3062137 | 0.1254 | 2.44 | 0.0150 | 1.3583 (1.0623–1.7367) |
| Diabetics | 0.3487115 | 0.2616 | 1.33 | 0.1830 | 1.4172 (0.8487–2.3666) |
| Cys C | 0.7297879 | 0.3015 | 2.42 | 0.0150 | 2.0746 (1.1490–3.7459) |
| Scr | 0.0103784 | 0.0061 | 1.70 | 0.0890 | 1.0104 (0.9984–1.0226) |
| eGFR | 0.0002985 | 0.0038 | 0.08 | 0.9370 | 1.0003 (0.9929–1.0078) |
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of different variables with vascular lesions
| Factor | Coefficient | SD | Statistic |
| OR (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cys C | 0.736095 | 0.3095 | 2.38 | 0.0170 | 2.0878 (1.1382–3.8295) |
| Male | 0.776684 | 0.2928 | 2.65 | 0.0080 | 2.1743 (1.2250–3.85920) |
| LDL-C | 0.329243 | 0.1270 | 2.59 | 0.0100 | 1.3899 (1.08360–1.7828) |
| Hypertension | 0.514262 | 0.2565 | 2.00 | 0.0450 | 1.6724 (1.0115–2.7650) |
Fig. 1Scatterplots showed linear relationships between serum cystatin C, eGFR and Scr
Comparison of constitute ratio differences of different Cys C subgroups and different eGFR subgroups in different vascular lesion groups
| Index | S | D | M | Statistic |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cys C | Q1 | 23 (25.27%) | 10 (14.93%) | 4 (10.81%) | Z = 7.25 | 0.0267 |
| Q2 | 12 (13.19%) | 13 (19.40%) | 5 (13.51%) | |||
| Q3 | 35 (38.46%) | 26 (38.81%) | 10 (27.03%) | |||
| Q4 | 21 (23.08%) | 18 (26.87%) | 18 (48.65%) | |||
| eGFR | q1 | 13 (14.29%) | 12 (17.91%) | 10 (29.73%) | Z = 2.90 | 0.2342 |
| q2 | 36 (39.56%) | 26 (38.81%) | 13 (35.14%) | |||
| q3 | 42 (46.15%) | 29 (43.28%) | 13 (35.14%) | |||
Fig. 2a Correlation of Cys C median with different vascular disease variables by box-plot; Note: Abscissa 1 represented group S, 2 represented group D, 3 represented group M, the ordinate represented the Cys C value, and the transverse lines in the blocks represented the medians. b Correlation of eGFR median with different vascular disease variables by box-plot. Note: Abscissa 1 represented group S, 2 represented group D, 3 represented group M, the ordinate represented the eGFR value, and the transverse lines in the blocks represented the medians
Fig. 3Scatterplot matrix among Cys C, eGFR, and Gensini score in patients with ACS. The pair Pearson correlation coefficients among the above three indexes