Why the study?
The relation between monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (MHR) and coronary artery disease in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remained controversial.
Does the monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (MHR) predict major adverse cardiac events and all-cause mortality in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Does the monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (MHR) predict major adverse cardiac events and all-cause mortality in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
An elevated monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio serves as an independent long-term prognostic marker for increased all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events in CAD patients post-PCI.
May support post-PCI risk stratification in CAD; hypothesis-generating pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: The relation between monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (MHR) and coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. The present study aims to assess the prognostic value of MHR in patients with CAD who underwent PCI. METHODS: A total of 673 CAD patients were retrospectively enrolled and divided into four groups according to MHR values. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to study the effects of different variables to clinical outcomes reported as major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and all-cause mortality (ACM). RESULTS: In a multivariate Cox analysis, after adjustment of other confounders, MHR was found to be an independent predictor of ACM (HR: 3.655; 95% CI: 1.170-11.419, P = 0.026) and MACE (HR =2.390, 95% CI 1.379-4.143, p < 0.002). Having a MHR in the third and fourth quartile were associated with a 2.83-fold and 3.26 -flod increased risk of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: MHR is an independent predictor of ACM and MACE in CAD patients undergoing PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: