Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2024
Coronary microvascular dysfunction and inflammation: Insights from the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Merdler Ilan, Chitturi Kalyan R, Chaturvedi Abhishek, Li Jason, Cellamare Matteo, Ozturk Sevket Tolga, Sawant Vaishnavi, Ben-Dor Itsik, Waksman Ron, Case Brian C, Hashim Hayder D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is associated with various inflammatory conditions that worsen endothelial dysfunction. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between CMD and inflammation using common inflammatory markers derived from complete blood count (CBC) analysis.
METHODS: Information was gathered from the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry to examine the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), eosinophil-to-monocyte ratio (EMR), and monocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio (MHR) in a cohort of patients with angina who showed non-obstructive coronary arteries and underwent invasive physiological assessments for CMD.
RESULTS: Of the 171 patients studied, 126 were CMD-negative and 45 were CMD-positive, constituting two groups of interest. The average age of all patients was 61.7 ± 11.1 years, and 63.7 % were female. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, or potential anti-inflammatory medications. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in NLR (2.54 ± 3.71 vs. 2.52 ± 2.28, p = 0.97), EMR (0.3 ± 0.21 vs. 0.34 ± 0.29, p = 0.31), or MHR (0.02 ± 0.01 vs. 0.01 ± 0.01, p = 0.54) between CMD-positive and CMD-negative patients.
CONCLUSION: Our findings did not show a noteworthy connection between CMD and inflammation, as suggested by various simple CBC-based biomarkers.
METHODS: Information was gathered from the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry to examine the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), eosinophil-to-monocyte ratio (EMR), and monocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio (MHR) in a cohort of patients with angina who showed non-obstructive coronary arteries and underwent invasive physiological assessments for CMD.
RESULTS: Of the 171 patients studied, 126 were CMD-negative and 45 were CMD-positive, constituting two groups of interest. The average age of all patients was 61.7 ± 11.1 years, and 63.7 % were female. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, or potential anti-inflammatory medications. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in NLR (2.54 ± 3.71 vs. 2.52 ± 2.28, p = 0.97), EMR (0.3 ± 0.21 vs. 0.34 ± 0.29, p = 0.31), or MHR (0.02 ± 0.01 vs. 0.01 ± 0.01, p = 0.54) between CMD-positive and CMD-negative patients.
CONCLUSION: Our findings did not show a noteworthy connection between CMD and inflammation, as suggested by various simple CBC-based biomarkers.