| Literature DB >> 35874900 |
Yanfeng Liu1, Haiwen Zhou1, Yu Tao1, Zhicheng Xu1, Hengli Lai1.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the predictive value of serum microRNA-106 (miRNA-106), miR-106, and myosin light chain 4 (MYL4) levels on the prevalence of atrial fibrillation and to explore the relationship between serum miR-106 and MYL4 and the risk stratification and prognosis of atrial fibrillation, thereby providing basis for them to become clinical targets for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in the future.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35874900 PMCID: PMC9303158 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1069866
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunol Res ISSN: 2314-7156 Impact factor: 4.493
Figure 1Flowchart of general data selection.
Comparison of general data of the two groups of patients () [n (%)].
| General data | AF ( | Control ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male/female) | 155/145 | 150/150 | 0.167 | 0.683 |
| Age (year) | 59.21 ± 12.12 | 58.50 ± 13.84 | 0.669 | 0.504 |
| Heart rate (beats/min) | 86.16 ± 7.12 | 70.44 ± 6.18 | 28.880 | <0.001 |
| BMI(kg/m2) | 25.62 ± 3.74 | 25.19 ± 2.60 | 1.635 | 0.103 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 132.02 ± 11.49 | 125.58 ± 11.16 | 6.964 | <0.001 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 72.54 ± 10.85 | 67.25 ± 8.49 | 6.651 | <0.001 |
| Smoking history | 62 (20.67) | 60 (20.00) | 0.041 | 0.839 |
| Drinking history | 57 (19.00) | 72 (24.00) | 2.222 | 0.136 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 3.82 ± 0.73 | 3.44 ± 0.79 | 6.119 | <0.001 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.51 ± 0.49 | 1.16 ± 0.38 | 9.776 | <0.001 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 0.79 ± 0.32 | 0.93 ± 0.25 | 5.971 | <0.001 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.99 ± 0.42 | 2.44 ± 0.53 | 14.087 | <0.001 |
| LAD (mm) | 45.46 ± 5.12 | 30.72 ± 2.16 | 45.943 | <0.001 |
| LVEF (%) | 52.16 ± 4.57 | 62.25 ± 4.18 | 28.218 | <0.001 |
Comparison of serum miR-106 and MYL4 levels between the two groups ().
| Groups | Cases | miR-106 | MYL4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| AF | 300 | 1.98 ± 1.24 | 0.24 ± 0.08 |
| Control | 300 | 1.42 ± 0.75 | 1.55 ± 0.79 |
|
| 6.693 | 28.575 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 |
Figure 2Expression of miR-106 and MYL4 in right atrial appendage atrial muscle tissue of patients with AF and sinus rhythm (×400). (a) miR-106 expression in AF myocardium; (b) miR-106 expression in sinus rhythm myocardium; (c) MYL4 expression in AF myocardium; (d) MYL4 expression in the sinus rhythm myocardium.
Comparison of serum miR-106 and MYL4 levels in patients with different types of AF ().
| Groups | Cases | miR-106 | MYL4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paroxysmal AF | 124 | 1.54 ± 0.76∗ | 1.05 ± 0.65∗ |
| Persistent AF | 113 | 1.68 ± 0.85∗ | 0.75 ± 0.58∗ |
| Long-term persistent AF | 42 | 1.80 ± 0.97∗ | 0.46 ± 0.23∗ |
| Permanent AF | 21 | 2.01 ± 1.05∗ | 0.21 ± 0.18∗ |
| Control | 300 | 1.42 ± 0.75 | 1.55 ± 0.79 |
|
| 5.47 | 56.27 | |
|
| 0.001 | <0.001 |
Prevalence of AF in patients with different levels of miR-106 and MYL4 [n (%)].
| Groups | Cases | Morbidity | |
|---|---|---|---|
| miR-106 | Q1 < 1.10 | 150 | 33 (22.00) |
| 1.10 ≤ Q2 < 1.96 | 150 | 51 (34.00) | |
| 1.96 ≤ Q3 < 2.82 | 151 | 88 (58.28) | |
| Q4 ≥ 2.82 | 149 | 128 (85.91) | |
|
| |||
| MYL4 | Q1 > 0.29 | 152 | 29 (19.08) |
| 0.29 ≥ Q2 > 0.24 | 149 | 58 (38.93) | |
| 0.24 ≥ Q3 > 0.19 | 151 | 96 (63.58) | |
| Q4 ≤ 0.19 | 148 | 117 (79.05) | |
Figure 3Nomogram of the relationship between miR-106, MYL4 and the prevalence of AF.
Risk of AF prevalence with different serum miR-106 and MYL4 levels [n (%)].
| Indicators | Quartile | Prevalence of AF (%) | OR value | 95% CI value |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| miR-106 | Q1 ( | 33 (22.00) | 1.00 | — | — |
| Q2 ( | 51 (34.00) | 1.61 | 1.10~2.46 | 0.016 | |
| Q3 ( | 88 (58.28) | 2.79 | 1.90~3.87 | <0.001 | |
| Q4 ( | 128 (85.91) | 4.08 | 2.88~5.74 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||||
| MYL4 | Q1 ( | 29 (19.08) | 1.00 | — | — |
| Q2 ( | 58 (38.93) | 1.53 | 1.06~2.51 | 0.022 | |
| Q3 ( | 96 (63.58) | 2.98 | 1.94~4.02 | <0.001 | |
| Q4 ( | 117 (79.05) | 4.52 | 2.25~4.98 | <0.001 | |
Relationship between serum miR-106 and MYL4 levels and risk stratification of AF ().
| CHA2DS2 score | Cases | miR-106 | MYL4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 15 | 1.12 ± 0.49 | 1.46 ± 0.87 |
| 1 | 64 | 1.55 ± 0.53 | 1.30 ± 0.67 |
| 2 | 71 | 1.63 ± 0.87 | 0.97 ± 0.46 |
| 3 | 92 | 1.72 ± 0.76 | 0.85 ± 0.14 |
| 4 | 33 | 1.87 ± 0.72 | 0.56 ± 0.13 |
| 5 | 14 | 1.95 ± 1.02 | 0.41 ± 0.24 |
| 6 | 11 | 2.05 ± 1.33 | 0.20 ± 0.09 |
Differences between the indicators.
| Factors |
| HR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| miR-106 ≤ 1.96 vs. miR-106 ≥ 1.96 | <0.001 | 1.658 | 1.045~2.778 |
| MYL4 ≥ 0.24 vs.MYL4 ≤ 0.24 | <0.001 | 2.478 | 1.876~6.458 |
| TC ≤ 4.5 mmol/L vs.TC > 4.5 mmol/L | <0.001 | 1.894 | 1.012~3.547 |
| LDL-C ≤ 2.6 mmol/L vs. LDL-C > 2.6 mmol/L | <0.001 | 2.013 | 1.230~3.778 |
Figure 4The relationship between serum miR-106 and MYL4 levels and the prognosis of AF. (a) Survival curve of patients with different miR-106 levels; (b) survival curve of patients with different MYL4 levels; (c) survival curve of patients with different TC levels; (d) survival curve of patients with different LDL-C levels.