Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: This study aims to investigate the value of interleukin 6 (IL-6) and high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) in predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Patients with ACS who were treated in our hospital from October 2022 to October 2023 were divided into MACE and no-MACE groups according to the occurrence of MACE after PCI. The baseline data and IL-6 and HMGB1 levels in the two groups were observed, and the influencing factors of MACE in patients with ACS after PCI were evaluated with a logistic regression test. The receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) values of IL-6 and HMGB1 in the prediction of MACE after PCI in patients with ACS were calculated. Results: No significant differences in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and other general data were found between the groups. Compared with the patients in the no-MACE group, the patients in the MACE group had a history of smoking (p = 0.011), hypertension (p < 0.001), diabetes (p < 0.001), more coronary lesions (p = 0.013), longer coronary lesions (p = 0.006), higher preoperative Gensini score (p < 0.001), and lower left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) (p < 0.001). The levels of IL-6 and HMGB1 in the MACE group were significantly higher than those in the no-MACE group. Coronary lesion length, Gensini score, LVEF, IL-6, and HMGB1 had good predictive value for MACE after PCI. The area under the curve (AUC) scores were 0.683, 0.941, 0.816, 0.878, and 0.737. The sensitivity was 53.13%, 81.25%, 84.37%, 78.12%, and 53.13%, and the specificity was 87.50%, 93.18%, 63.64%, 86.36%, and 86.36%, respectively. Analysis of IL-6 and HMGB1 levels showed that the AUC was 0.922, the sensitivity was 90.62%, the specificity was 82.95%, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was (0.858–0.963; p < 0.05). Conclusion: IL-6 and HMGB1 have good predictive value for MACE after PCI for patients with ACS and can be used as clinical evaluation indexes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: