Why the study?
Visfatin is related to atherosclerosis inflammation and plaque destabilization, but its relationship with MACE in AMI patients required investigation.
Does elevated serum visfatin predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Does elevated serum visfatin predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Elevated serum visfatin levels (≥8.799 ng/mL) in patients with acute myocardial infarction are associated with a higher incidence and earlier onset of major adverse cardiovascular events.
May flag higher MACE risk in AMI; leaves open whether visfatin improves risk stratification beyond standard markers.
BACKGROUND: Visfatin is an adipokine that related with the inflammation in atherosclerosis and the destabilization of atherosclerotic plaque. The aim of this study was to observe the relationship between visfatin and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. METHODS: We enrolled a total of 238 patients (183 AMI and 55 control) who underwent coronary angiography. Patients with AMI were followed for an average of 19.3 months and 159 patients were finally included in the study. RESULTS: It was observed patients with AMI had higher serum visfatin levels than controls. The total incidence of MACEs was 11.32% (18/159) in AMI patients. After calculation of the Youden index, the best cut-off value of visfatin on the curve of receiver-operating characteristic was 8.799 ng/mL for predicting the occurrence of MACEs. The occurrence of MACEs was elevated in high-visfatin group (≥8.799 ng/mL) compared with low-visfatin group (≤8.799 ng/mL). The time to MACEs was correlated with visfatin (HR = 1.235, 95%CI 1.051-1.451, P = 0.01) and high-visfatin group had an earlier time to MACEs and a shorter time of cumulative survival. CONCLUSIONS: Increased serum visfatin levels were observed in AMI patients, and correlated with an earlier onset and higher incidence of MACEs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: