Evaluation of the Atherogenic Index of Plasma in the Prognostic Value of Ischemic Heart Failure Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-30 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.31083/RCM33470
Yinxiao Xu, Biyang Zhang, Meishi Ma, Yi Kan, Tienan Sun, Xin Huang, Yujie Zhou
{"title":"Evaluation of the Atherogenic Index of Plasma in the Prognostic Value of Ischemic Heart Failure Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.","authors":"Yinxiao Xu, Biyang Zhang, Meishi Ma, Yi Kan, Tienan Sun, Xin Huang, Yujie Zhou","doi":"10.31083/RCM33470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) is calculated as the logarithm of the triglyceride (TG) to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio. While previous studies suggested that TG and HDL-C levels were linked to the prognosis in various cardiovascular conditions, including ischemic heart failure (IHF), there is limited research specifically examining AIP in the context of IHF. Therefore, our study sought to explore the association between AIP and the prognosis of IHF and to compare the predictive value of AIP, HDL-C, and TG levels for identifying patients with poor outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single institution involving 2036 IHF patients with post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who were followed for 36 months. Patients were divided into four groups categorized according to AIP quartiles. The primary outcome of interest was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), while secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and any revascularization. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to evaluate the occurrence of endpoints across the four groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis reinforced that AIP independently predicted primary and secondary outcomes. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) method was employed to examine the non-linear association between AIP and endpoints. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, combined with the Delong test, were used to assess and compare the predictive accuracy of AIP, TG, and HDL-C.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>The incidence of MACEs (Q4:Q1 = 50.6:23.0, <i>p</i> < 0.001), all-cause death (Q4:Q1 = 25.0:11.6, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and any revascularization (Q4:Q1 = 21.6:9.6, <i>p</i> < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients with elevated AIP. The Kaplan- Meier curve analysis further supported a positive association between AIP and MACEs (<i>p</i> <sub>log-rank</sub> < 0.001). Multivariate Cox analysis showed that AIP was independently associated with the increased risk of MACEs (Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 2.84 (2.25-3.59), <i>p</i> <sub>trend</sub> < 0.001), all-cause death (Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 2.76 (1.98-3.84), <i>p</i> <sub>trend</sub> < 0.001), non-fatal MI (Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 3.01 (1.32-6.90), <i>p</i> <sub>trend</sub> < 0.001), and any revascularization (Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 2.92 (2.04-4.19), <i>p</i> <sub>trend</sub> < 0.001). In RCS, higher AIP was non-linearly relevant to an increased risk of MACEs (<i>p</i> <sub>non-linear</sub> = 0.0112). In subgroup analysis, the predictive value of AIP for MACEs was more pronounced in the younger patient subgroup (<i>p</i> <sub>interaction</sub> = 0.003). The ROC curves showed the predictive value of AIP (area under curve [AUC] = 0.641), HDL-C (AUC = 0.600), and TG (AUC = 0.629), and AIP had the best predictive value among TG (AIP:TG: difference in AUC (95% CI), 0.012 (0.001-0.024), <i>p</i> for Delong test = 0.028) and HDL-C (AIP:HDL-C: difference in AUC (95% CI), 0.041 (0.018-0.064), <i>p</i> for Delong test <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In IHF patients after PCI, AIP was strongly relevant to an increased risk of MACEs and had the best predictive validity compared with TG and HDL-C.</p>","PeriodicalId":20989,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","volume":"26 6","pages":"33470"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12230851/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/RCM33470","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) is calculated as the logarithm of the triglyceride (TG) to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio. While previous studies suggested that TG and HDL-C levels were linked to the prognosis in various cardiovascular conditions, including ischemic heart failure (IHF), there is limited research specifically examining AIP in the context of IHF. Therefore, our study sought to explore the association between AIP and the prognosis of IHF and to compare the predictive value of AIP, HDL-C, and TG levels for identifying patients with poor outcomes.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single institution involving 2036 IHF patients with post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who were followed for 36 months. Patients were divided into four groups categorized according to AIP quartiles. The primary outcome of interest was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), while secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and any revascularization. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to evaluate the occurrence of endpoints across the four groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis reinforced that AIP independently predicted primary and secondary outcomes. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) method was employed to examine the non-linear association between AIP and endpoints. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, combined with the Delong test, were used to assess and compare the predictive accuracy of AIP, TG, and HDL-C.

Result: The incidence of MACEs (Q4:Q1 = 50.6:23.0, p < 0.001), all-cause death (Q4:Q1 = 25.0:11.6, p < 0.001), and any revascularization (Q4:Q1 = 21.6:9.6, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients with elevated AIP. The Kaplan- Meier curve analysis further supported a positive association between AIP and MACEs (p log-rank < 0.001). Multivariate Cox analysis showed that AIP was independently associated with the increased risk of MACEs (Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 2.84 (2.25-3.59), p trend < 0.001), all-cause death (Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 2.76 (1.98-3.84), p trend < 0.001), non-fatal MI (Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 3.01 (1.32-6.90), p trend < 0.001), and any revascularization (Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 2.92 (2.04-4.19), p trend < 0.001). In RCS, higher AIP was non-linearly relevant to an increased risk of MACEs (p non-linear = 0.0112). In subgroup analysis, the predictive value of AIP for MACEs was more pronounced in the younger patient subgroup (p interaction = 0.003). The ROC curves showed the predictive value of AIP (area under curve [AUC] = 0.641), HDL-C (AUC = 0.600), and TG (AUC = 0.629), and AIP had the best predictive value among TG (AIP:TG: difference in AUC (95% CI), 0.012 (0.001-0.024), p for Delong test = 0.028) and HDL-C (AIP:HDL-C: difference in AUC (95% CI), 0.041 (0.018-0.064), p for Delong test <0.001).

Conclusion: In IHF patients after PCI, AIP was strongly relevant to an increased risk of MACEs and had the best predictive validity compared with TG and HDL-C.

血浆动脉粥样硬化指数对缺血性心力衰竭经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后预后价值的评价。
背景:血浆动脉粥样硬化指数(AIP)是用甘油三酯(TG)与高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)比值的对数来计算的。虽然先前的研究表明TG和HDL-C水平与各种心血管疾病的预后有关,包括缺血性心力衰竭(IHF),但在IHF背景下专门检查AIP的研究有限。因此,我们的研究旨在探讨AIP与IHF预后之间的关系,并比较AIP、HDL-C和TG水平对鉴别预后不良患者的预测价值。方法:本回顾性队列研究在单一机构进行,涉及2036例经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后的IHF患者,随访36个月。根据AIP四分位数将患者分为四组。主要结局是主要不良心血管事件(mace),次要结局包括全因死亡率、非致死性心肌梗死(MI)和任何血运重建术。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线用于评估四组终点的发生情况。多因素Cox回归分析证实AIP独立预测主要和次要结局。采用限制三次样条(RCS)方法检验AIP与终点之间的非线性关系。采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,结合Delong检验,评估和比较AIP、TG和HDL-C的预测准确性。结果:AIP升高患者的mace发生率(Q4:Q1 = 50.6:23.0, p < 0.001)、全因死亡发生率(Q4:Q1 = 25.0:11.6, p < 0.001)和任何血流量重建发生率(Q4:Q1 = 21.6:9.6, p < 0.001)均显著高于AIP升高患者。Kaplan- Meier曲线分析进一步支持AIP与mace呈正相关(p log-rank < 0.001)。多因素Cox分析显示,AIP与mace (Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 2.84 (2.25-3.59), p趋势< 0.001)、全因死亡(Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 2.76 (1.98-3.84), p趋势< 0.001)、非致死性心肌梗死(Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 3.01 (1.32-6.90), p趋势< 0.001)和任何血运重建(Q4:Q1 (HR (95% CI)): 2.92 (2.04-4.19), p趋势< 0.001)的风险增加独立相关。在RCS中,较高的AIP与mace风险增加呈非线性相关(p非线性= 0.0112)。在亚组分析中,AIP对mace的预测价值在年轻患者亚组中更为显著(p交互作用= 0.003)。ROC曲线显示AIP(曲线下面积[AUC] = 0.641)、HDL-C (AUC = 0.600)和TG (AUC = 0.629)具有预测价值,其中AIP在TG (AIP:TG: AUC差异(95% CI), 0.012 (0.001-0.024), Delong试验p = 0.028)和HDL-C (AIP:HDL-C: AUC差异(95% CI), 0.041 (0.018-0.064), Delong试验p中具有最佳预测价值。在PCI术后IHF患者中,AIP与mace风险增加密切相关,与TG和HDL-C相比,AIP具有最佳的预测效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
377
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RCM is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal. RCM publishes research articles, review papers and short communications on cardiovascular medicine as well as research on cardiovascular disease. We aim to provide a forum for publishing papers which explore the pathogenesis and promote the progression of cardiac and vascular diseases. We also seek to establish an interdisciplinary platform, focusing on translational issues, to facilitate the advancement of research, clinical treatment and diagnostic procedures. Heart surgery, cardiovascular imaging, risk factors and various clinical cardiac & vascular research will be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信