Why the study?
Do specific gene polymorphisms predict 12-month adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with STEMI?
Do specific gene polymorphisms predict 12-month adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with STEMI?
Genotyping for ACE (I/D) and ADRB1 Ser49Gly polymorphisms may help predict 1-year cardiovascular outcomes and personalize pharmacotherapy in patients with STEMI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hypothesis-generating for genetic risk stratification in STEMI; prospective validation needed before clinical adoption.
Aim: to analyze the prognostic value of gene polymorphisms ACE (D/I), SLCO1B1 (Val174Ala), LIPC (C514T), CYP2C19*2, CYP2C19*3, ADRB1 (Ser49Gly), ADRB1 (Arg389Gly) of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Materials and methods: 145 patients with STEMI from 45 to 75 years of age were involved into the study. All patients were prescribed all recommended preparations improving prognosis (statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, clopidogrel as part of dual antiplatelet therapy) from the first day of hospitalization. To determine gene polimorphismspolimerase chain reactionwas used. Prognosis was assessed by a combined endpoint, including cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization of coronary arteries and hospitalization for unstable angina, throughout 12 months. Results. The II genotype of the polymorphic gene ACE (I / D) is a predictor of the 12-month STEMI fa-vorable outcome. Allele Ser of the polymorphic gene ADRB1 Ser49Gly is associated with an increased incidence of adverse cardiovascular events within 12 months after STEMI. Gene polymorphisms SLCO1B1 (Val174Ala), CYP2C19*2, CYP2C19*3, ADRB1 (Arg389Gly), LIPC (C514T) does not affect the 12-month forecast after STEMI. Conclusions. Genotyping of ACE (I /D) and ADRB1 Ser49Gly can be used to assess the long-term prog-nosis and effectiveness of pharmacotherapy STEMI by means of personalizing it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Солодун et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: