Key result
Homocysteine levels were significantly associated with coronary slow flow syndrome (OR 1.107; 95% CI 1.018-1.205; p=0.018) and recurrent angina (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.05-1.34; p=0.005).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to identify molecular markers related to coronary slow flow syndrome (CSFS) and its prognosis.
Is elevated homocysteine associated with the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary slow flow syndrome?
Case-Control (n=155)
Is elevated homocysteine associated with the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary slow flow syndrome?
Odds Ratio: 1.107 (95% CI 1.018–1.205)
p-value: p=0.018
Elevated homocysteine levels (≥17.1 μmol/l) are significantly associated with the presence of coronary slow flow syndrome and predict a higher risk of recurrent angina.
Aim: To identify the exact molecular markers related to coronary slow flow syndrome (CSFS) and its prognosis. Patients & methods: Data from 54 patients with CSFS diagnosed by coronary angiography and 101 normal control patients were collected and analyzed. Results: Logistic regression analysis confirmed that homocysteine (Hcy; odds ratio: 1.107; 95% CI: 1.018–1.205; p = 0.018) was associated with CSFS. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis identified an Hcy value of 17.1 μmol/l as an effective cut-off point for predicting CSFS. Cox survival analysis showed a relationship between high admission Hcy level (odds ratio: 1.19; 95% CI = 1.05–1.34; p = 0.005) and recurrent angina. Conclusion: Our results showed positive correlations of Hcy with CSFS and cardiac events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2019) conducted a case-control in Coronary slow flow syndrome (n=155). Homocysteine vs. Normal controls was evaluated on Coronary slow flow syndrome (CSFS) (OR 1.107, 95% CI 1.018-1.205, p=0.018). Homocysteine levels were significantly associated with coronary slow flow syndrome (OR 1.107; 95% CI 1.018-1.205; p=0.018) and recurrent angina (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.05-1.34; p=0.005).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: