Why the study?
Does serum corin level predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome?
Does serum corin level predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome?
Lower serum corin levels are associated with non-ST-elevation ACS and independently predict the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events within 3 years.
Serum corin may refine post-ACS risk stratification; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to describe the role of corin, an enzyme that cleaves pro-atrial natriuretic peptide and pro-brain natriuretic peptide into their active peptides, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: Serum corin level was studied in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (n=152) and in control volunteers (n=103). RESULTS: The corin level was lower in acute coronary syndrome patients (798±288 pg/ml) than in the controls (1165±613 pg/ml, p<0.0001). Those acute coronary syndrome patients who developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; 60.9%) within 3 years of discharge had lower corin levels than the patients who did not experience major adverse cardiovascular events (698.16±233.67 vs. 952.1±297.81 pg/ml, p<0.0001). Using a multiple logistic regression model, corin level was a significant predictor of post-ACS MACE: p=0.0004 for 50 pg/ml steps, AUC 0.791, while p<0.0001, and AUC 0.804 using corin and brain natriuretic peptide as predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-ST-elevation ACS have lower serum corin levels than controls. Corin levels are lower in ACS patients who later experience MACE and thus might be predictor for MACE. This new putative biomarker may be useful, either alone or in combination with other biomarkers, for cardiovascular risk stratification assessment and outcome prediction in ACS patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peleg et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: