Key result
Elevated macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) measured before revascularization was an independent predictor of reperfusion myocardial injury in STEMI patients (OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.0-1.2; p=0.037).
Why the study?
Major adverse cardiovascular events remain common after STEMI potentially due to no-reflow, and the study sought to estimate the role of MIF in predicting early reperfusion myocardial injury.
Does elevated baseline macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) predict early reperfusion myocardial injury in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI?
Observational (n=341)
Does elevated baseline macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) predict early reperfusion myocardial injury in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI?
Odds Ratio: 1.1 (95% CI 1–1.2)
p-value: p=0.037
Elevated levels of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) before PCI independently predict the 'no-reflow' phenomenon in patients with STEMI.
Baseline MIF may aid pre-PCI risk stratification for reperfusion injury in STEMI; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Introduction Major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are still common despite the modern treatment approaches. It may be caused by the “no-reflow” phenomenon. One of the promising biomarkers for the coronary “no-reflow” phenomenon prediction is proinflammatory cytokine macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF). Purpose To estimate the role of MIF in the prediction of early reperfusion myocardial injury in patients with STEMI. Methods The study involved 341 STEMI patients (78.6% male and 21.4% female) with an average age of 59.08±9.65 years. Control group of 12 healthy volunteers included. All patients were made to undergo a baseline investigation. In addition, the level of MIF determined twice during the first 12 hours of STEMI, before the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and after the procedure. Coronary blood flow evaluated using TIMI flow grade and myocardial blush grade (MBG). All patients had epicardial blood flow TIMI 3. The criteria for “no-reflow” diagnosis were myocardial perfusion at MBG 0 or MBG 1 level with complete recovery of epicardial blood flow or ST-segment resolution (rST) of less than 70% from baseline within 2 hours after PCI. All patients were divided into two groups according to MBG and rST after PCI more and less than 70%: 147 patients in the first group with MBG stage 0–1, 182 patients with MBG stage 2–3 Results 64% of STEMI patients had elevated MIF levels above the highest value in healthy controls (2778±217 ng/ml; 225±6,7 ng/ml; p=0,0003). The level of MIF biomarker, determined before PCI was significantly higher in the group of patients with MBG 0–1 in comparison to MBG 2–3. (4708±471 ng/ml vs 2914±347ng/ml; p=0,004). Using the multivariate regression analysis, the dependencies of the biomarker MIF on the parameters of the reperfusion myocardial injuries were obtained. MIF measured before revascularization as well as the patient's gender, was an independent predictor of MBG 0–1 and rST less than 70% (coefficients Beta 0,1; odd ratio 1,1; 95%confidential interval (CI) 1,0–1,2; p=0,037 and coefficient Beta 2,9; odd ratio 17.7; 95% CI 0,96–32; p=0,05, respectively). Conclusions The study revealed that MIF predicts reperfusion myocardial injury in patients with STEMI. Future investigations of the MIF biological effects are the perspective direction in the field of modern cardiology. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vishnevskaya et al. (2020) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=341). Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) level vs. Lower MIF levels was evaluated on Reperfusion myocardial injury (MBG 0-1 and rST < 70%) (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2, p=0.037). Elevated macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) measured before revascularization was an independent predictor of reperfusion myocardial injury in STEMI patients (OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.0-1.2; p=0.037).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: