Why the study?
The difference between cystatin C-based and creatinine-based eGFR (eGFRdiff) has been linked to cardiovascular prognosis, but its role in primary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) remains unclear.
Does the difference between cystatin C-based and creatinine-based eGFR (eGFRdiff) predict the risk of incident coronary artery disease in adults without baseline CAD?
Cohort (n=437,536)
Yes
Does the difference between cystatin C-based and creatinine-based eGFR (eGFRdiff) predict the risk of incident coronary artery disease in adults without baseline CAD?
Hazard Ratio: 0.717 (95% CI 0.675–0.762)
p-value: p=<0.001
A negative difference between cystatin C-based and creatinine-based eGFR is independently associated with a significantly higher risk of incident coronary artery disease, highlighting its potential utility as a marker for hidden renal impairment and cardiovascular risk.
Background The difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) derived from creatinine and cystatin C (eGFRdiff) has been noticed recently and the relationship with poor cardiovascular prognosis has been proven. However, primary prevention of the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) is equally important but there is a lack of studies specifically investigating this implication.Methods This prospective cohort study utilized data from the UK Biobank, including 437,536 participants without CAD at baseline. The primary outcome was defined as CAD. The eGFRdiff was calculated by subtracting creatinine-based eGFR from cystatin C-based eGFR. Participants were then categorized into a negative, intermediate range, and positive group based on thresholds of −15 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 15 mL/min/1.73 m2. Cox proportional risk models were used to evaluate the associations of eGFRdiff with CAD and the relationship among different genetic risks of CAD.Results During a median follow-up of 13.8 years, CAD occurred in 36,797 participants. In the fully adjusted model, compared to midrange eGFRdiff, participants with a positive eGFRdiff had a lower risk of CAD (HR 0.717, 95%CI 0.675-0.762), while with a negative eGFRdiff had a higher risk (HR 1.433, 95%CI 1.399-1.468). When eGFRdiff was treated as a continuous variable, a statistically significant trend toward a lower risk of CAD as eGFRdiff increased (HR 0.982, 95% CI 0.981-0.982). Moreover, this relationship is independent of genetic susceptibility.Conclusions eGFRdiff was associated with CAD risk, where a high eGFRdiff corresponded to a decreased likelihood of CAD onset no matter genetic susceptibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease (n=437,536). Positive eGFRdiff (≥15 mL/min/1.73 m2) vs. Midrange eGFRdiff (-15 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) was evaluated on Incident coronary artery disease (CAD) (HR 0.717, 95% CI 0.675-0.762, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: