Postprandial atherogenic index (PAIP) is a superior predictor of contrast-induced nephropathy with an OR of 46.57 compared to 6.33 for fasting atherogenic index (FAIP).
Does postprandial atherogenic index of plasma (PAIP) better predict contrast-induced nephropathy compared to fasting atherogenic index of plasma (FAIP) in ACS patients undergoing PCI?
Postprandial atherogenic index of plasma is a superior predictor of contrast-induced nephropathy compared to fasting levels in ACS patients undergoing PCI.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a common complication in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The atherogenic index of plasma (AIP; log triglyceride/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)), is linked to cardiovascular risk, but the value of postprandial AIP (PAIP) versus fasting AIP (FAIP) for predicting CIN is unclear. The present study compared the predictive ability of PAIP and FAIP for CIN in ACS patients undergoing PCI. ACS patients (n = 882) were analyzed, with 512 in the FAIP group and 370 in the PAIP group, based on the timing of lipid panel collection. CIN occurred in 15.6% of the FAIP group and 16.2% of the PAIP group ( P = .813). AIP was significantly higher in the PAIP group (0.643 ± 0.264) compared with the FAIP group (0.493 ± 0.262, P < .001). AIP was an independent predictor of CIN in both groups, with stronger predictive power in the PAIP group (OR 46.57, P < .001) versus the FAIP group (OR 6.33, P = .003) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed a higher area under the curve (AUC) for PAIP (0.712) than FAIP (0.670, P < .001). PAIP is a superior predictor of CIN compared with FAIP, emphasizing the importance of the postprandial lipid profile in ACS patients.
Ateş et al. (Fri,) reported a other. Postprandial atherogenic index (PAIP) is a superior predictor of contrast-induced nephropathy with an OR of 46.57 compared to 6.33 for fasting atherogenic index (FAIP).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: