Why the study?
Little was known about the association between the FT3/FT4 ratio and clinical outcomes in euthyroid patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI.
Does a lower FT3/FT4 ratio predict increased risk of MACCEs in euthyroid patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI?
Does a lower FT3/FT4 ratio predict increased risk of MACCEs in euthyroid patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI?
The FT3/FT4 ratio is an independent prognostic indicator for long-term MACCE and enhances risk discrimination when combined with the GRACE risk score in euthyroid NSTE-ACS patients undergoing PCI.
Elevated FT3/FT4 ratio signals higher stroke risk post-PCI in euthyroid NSTE-ACS; leaves open need for validation before any monitoring or trials.
Little is known about the association between the free triiodothyronine/free thyroxine (FT3/FT4) ratio and clinical outcomes in euthyroid patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A total of 1448 euthyroid patients with NSTE-ACS who underwent PCI were included in this prospective study. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that there was a significantly increased risk of stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 11.380, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.386–93.410, P = .024) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) (HR 3.364, 95% CI: 1.595–7.098, P = .001) in patients in lower FT3/FT4 tertiles. The combined model of FT3/FT4 ratio and the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score provided the added value of risk assessment by improving C-statistics, integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and the net reclassification index (NRI) (all P < .05). Thus, in euthyroid patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI, the FT3/FT4 ratio was not only an independent prognostic indicator of long-term MACCE but also enhanced risk discrimination when combined with the GRACE risk score, which suggests that the calculation of FT3/FT4 before and after PCI may contribute to risk stratification in this particular patient group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: