| Literature DB >> 35187124 |
Duanbin Li1,2, Ya Li1,2, Cao Wang1,2,3, Hangpan Jiang4, Liding Zhao5, Xulin Hong1,2, Maoning Lin1,2, Yi Luan1,2, Xiaohua Shen1,2, Zhaoyang Chen6, Wenbin Zhang1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased plaque vulnerability and higher lipid variability are causes of adverse cardiovascular events. Despite a close association between glucose and lipid metabolisms, the influence of elevated glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) on plaque vulnerability and lipid variability remains unclear.Entities:
Keywords: hemoglobin A1c; lipid variability; optical coherence tomography; percutaneous coronary intervention; plaque vulnerability
Year: 2022 PMID: 35187124 PMCID: PMC8852677 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.803036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Figure 1Flow chart of the current study.
Figure 2Representative cross-sectional OCT images. (A) Lipid core (*) and minimal FCT were detected. (B–D) The arcs of lipid accumulation, macrophage infiltration, and calcium deposition were measured in representative cross-sectional OCT images, respectively. FCT indicates fibrous cap thickness.
Patient characteristics.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| ||
| Age, years | 61.4 ± 11.1 | 63.8 ± 10.3 |
| Male, | 303 (82.8) | 3,187 (71.7) |
| Current smoker, | 144 (39.3) | 1,001 (22.5) |
| Hypertension, | 253 (69.1) | 2,845 (64.0) |
| Diabetes mellitus, | 115 (31.4) | 1,139 (25.6) |
| Dyslipidemia, | 192 (52.5) | 2,148 (48.3) |
| Prior MI, | 60 (16.4) | 166 (3.7) |
| Prior PCI, | 79 (21.6) | 345 (7.7) |
| Prior CABG, | 5 (1.4) | 26 (0.6) |
| Ejection fraction, % | 59.7 ± 9.6 | 64.8 ± 10.1 |
| Acute coronary syndromes | 213 (58.2) | 1,028 (23.1) |
| Stable angina pectoris | 153 (41.8) | 3,417 (76.9) |
| LAD | 176 (48.1) | 2,275 (49.4) |
| LCX | 60 (16.4) | 738 (16.0) |
| RCA | 130 (35.5) | 1,595 (34.6) |
|
| ||
| HbA1c, % | 5.90 ± 1.31 | 5.98 ± 1.16 |
| LDL-C, mmol/L | 2.98 ± 0.94 | 2.38 ± 0.97 |
| HDL-C, mmol/L | 1.17 ± 0.29 | 1.04 ± 0.28 |
| Triglyceride, mmol/L | 1.43 ± 0.84 | 1.77 ± 1.38 |
| Total cholesterol, mmol/L | 4.81 ± 1.06 | 4.35 ± 1.24 |
| eGFR, ml/min/1.73 m2 | 70.6 ± 23.7 | 85.0 ± 19.7 |
Values are mean ± SD or n (%). Dyslipidemia is defined LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L. OCT, optical coherence tomography; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; LAD, left anterior descending artery; LCX, left circumflex artery; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; RCA, right coronary artery; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Vulnerability features of the culprit vessel by OCT assessment according to HbA1c levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Minimum lumen area, mm2 | 1.16 ± 0.92 | 1.15 ± 0.83 | 0.98 ± 0.61 | 0.378 | 0.150 | – | 0.118 | – |
| Mean reference lumen area, mm2 | 7.8 ± 4.1 | 7.0 ± 2.3 | 6.3 ± 2.1 | 0.102 | 0.033* | – | 0.038* | – |
| Percent area stenosis, % | 81.7 ± 10.7 | 80.4 ± 12.6 | 82.5 ± 9.6 | 0.733 | 0.916 | – | 0.032* | – |
| Lesion length, mm | 23.1 ± 8.0 | 23.2 ± 9.3 | 25.1 ± 8.6 | 0.190 | 0.113 | – | 0.082* | 0.136 |
| Plaque rupture, | 79 (41.3) | 27 (29.3) | 30 (36.1) | 0.143 | 0.239 | 0.033* | – | – |
| Thrombus, | 90 (47.1) | 30 (32.6) | 47 (56.6) | 0.005* | 0.419 | 0.014* | 0.094 | 0.001* |
| Thrombus with plaque rupture, | 55 (28.8) | 17 (18.5) | 25 (30.1) | 0.128 | 0.841 | 0.062 | – | 0.072 |
| Thrombus without plaque rupture, | 35 (18.3) | 13 (14.1) | 22 (26.5) | 0.106 | 0.212 | – | 0.087 | 0.032* |
| Calcified nodule, | 3 (2.2) | 2 (2.9) | 3 (4.6) | 0.637 | 0.353 | – | – | – |
| Microchannel, | 71 (37.0) | 36 (39.1) | 37 (44.6) | 0.513 | 0.265 | – | 0.154 | – |
| Cholesterol crystal, | 48 (25.1) | 24 (26.1) | 29 (34.9) | 0.232 | 0.121 | – | 0.066 | 0.134* |
| Thin–cap fibroatheroma, | 80 (41.8) | 26 (28.2) | 42 (50.6) | 0.009* | 0.458 | 0.018* | 0.115 | 0.002* |
| Minimal fibrous cap thickness, μm | 105.0 ± 53.4 | 101.1 ± 43.0 | 87.7 ± 44.2 | 0.008* | 0.003* | – | 0.003* | 0.032* |
|
| ||||||||
| Lipid index, degree × mm | 1476.8 [847.7, 2213.7] | 1521.8 [900.3, 2200.7] | 1863.1 [1093.6, 2832.5] | 0.004* | 0.002* | – | 0.003* | 0.046* |
| Lipid length, mm | 10.0 [7.0, 15.0] | 11.0 [7.0, 14.0] | 12.0 [8.0, 18.0] | 0.020* | 0.009* | – | 0.017* | – |
| Max lipid angle, degree | 238.8 [175.1, 305.8] | 237.2 [183.4, 289.7] | 249.5 [205.4, 309.5] | 0.269 | 0.120 | – | 0.106 | – |
|
| ||||||||
| Macrophage index, degree × mm | 385.9 [194.8, 617.5] | 412.9 [237.7, 727.3] | 437.7 [291.1, 781.1] | 0.067 | 0.049* | – | 0.037* | – |
| Macrophage length, mm | 7.0 [4.0, 11.0] | 8.0 [4.0, 12.0] | 9.0 [6.0, 13.0] | 0.075 | 0.039* | – | 0.041* | – |
| Max macrophage angle, degree | 89.0 [66.6, 130.2] | 97.5 [65.8, 134.7] | 103.6 [69.7, 132.8] | 0.412 | 0.186 | – | – | – |
|
| ||||||||
| Calcium index, degree × mm | 301.4 [129.2, 778.2] | 390.2 [182.3, 1114.0] | 418.7 [100.6, 986.0] | 0.051 | 0.017* | – | 0.023* | – |
| Calcium length, mm | 5.0 [2.0, 10.0] | 6.0 [2.0, 12.0] | 6.0 [2.0, 13.0] | 0.274 | 0.110 | – | – | – |
| Max calcium angle, degree | 93.2 [63.9, 135.5] | 119.8 [65.1, 190.0] | 107.5 [65.8, 171.7] | 0.115 | 0.128 | – | – | – |
Values are mean ± SD or median [interquartile range] for continuous variables and n (%) for categorical variables. P-value <0.2 for pairwise comparison was presented. Pairwise comparison P.
Figure 3LOWESS curves of the association between pre-procedural HbA1c levels and vulnerability features. Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) curves were used to visualize the rough association between pre-procedural HbA1c levels and vulnerability features, including (A) minimal fibrous cap thickness, (B) lipid index, (C) macrophage index, and (D) calcium index. The semi-transparent ribbon around the solid line indicates the 95% confidence interval. Rug plots show the distribution of pre-procedural HbA1c levels.
Linear regression analyses of pre-procedure HbA1c levels on vulnerability features.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Minimal FCT | −4.528 [−9.308 to 0.252] | 0.063 | −6.735 [−13.589 to 0.119] | 0.054 | −6.985 [−13.902 to −0.068] | 0.048* |
| Lipid index | 240.686 [133.924 to 347.448] | <0.001* | 226.835 [71.11 to 382.561] | 0.004* | 226.299 [67.977 to 384.621] | 0.005* |
| Macrophage index | 38.248 [2.206 to 74.29] | 0.038* | 57.451 [5.227 to 109.675] | 0.031* | 54.526 [1.268 to 107.785] | 0.045* |
| Calcium index | 31.816 [−75.623 to 139.255] | 0.560 | −100.204 [−255.258 to 54.849] | 0.204 | −81.223 [−239.805 to 77.358] | 0.314 |
Model 1 adjusted for none.
Model 2 adjusted for age, male, diabetes, hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, current smoker, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ejection fraction, estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Model 3 additionally adjusted for covariates of pre-procedure medications, including statin, aspirin, P2Y
FCT indicates fibrous cap thickness; CI, confidence interval. *P <0.05.
Figure 4Forest plots of the vulnerability feature analyses. By using OCT assessment, forest plots depicted the effect of pre-procedure HbA1c levels on the vulnerability feature of culprit vessels, including minimal fibrous cap thickness, lipid index, macrophage index, and calcium index. Subgroups were determined according to Type 2 DM (yes or no), HbA1c categories (<5.7%, 5.7–6.4%, ≥6.5%), clinical symptom (SAP or ACS). OCT, optical coherence tomography; SAP, stable angina pectoris; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; FCT, fibrous cap thickness; DM, diabetes mellitus. *P < 0.05.
Linear regression analyses of average follow-up HbA1c levels on the visit-to-visit variability of lipid profiles.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| LDL-C | 2.802 [1.600–4.005] | <0.001 | 3.465 [1.953–4.978] | <0.001 | 2.594 [1.175–4.013] | <0.001 |
| HDL-C | 0.634 [0.271–0.996] | 0.001 | 0.544 [0.090–0.998] | 0.019 | 0.461 [0.012–0.911] | 0.044 |
| Non-HDL-C | 1.221 [0.777–1.666] | <0.001 | 1.653 [1.094–2.213] | <0.001 | 1.473 [0.926–2.021] | <0.001 |
| TC | 0.849 [0.659–1.039] | <0.001 | 1.069 [0.831–1.308] | <0.001 | 0.947 [0.721–1.174] | <0.001 |
| TG | 3.710 [2.895–4.526] | <0.001 | 4.345 [3.321–5.370] | <0.001 | 4.217 [3.186–5.249] | <0.001 |
Model 1 adjusted for none.
Model 2 adjusted for age, male, diabetes, hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, current smoker, ejection fraction, estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Model 3 additionally adjusted for covariates of medications during follow-up, including the type of statin (atorvastatin/rosuvastatin/others), the intensive statin treatment (vs. regular), statin combined with ezetimibe treatment (vs. without), insulin treatment (vs. without).
Lipid variability was represented by VIM. VIM, variability independent of the mean; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 5Forest plots of the lipid variability analyses. Forest plots depicted the effect of average follow-up HbA1c levels on visit-to-visit variability of lipid profiles, including LDL-C, HDL-C, Non-HDL-C, TC, and TG. Lipid variability was represented by the variability independent of the mean (VIM). Subgroups were determined according to Type 2 DM (yes or no), types of statins (atorvastatin or rosuvastatin), and lipid-lowering therapy strategy (regular statins/intensive statins/statins plus ezetimibe). LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Non-HDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; DM, diabetes mellitus. *P < 0.05.