Dataset Information

Association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Inflammation plays a key role in the pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock (CS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a biomarker of inflammation and is used to predict prognostic outcomes of several diseases. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate if LDL-C can be used as a biomarker to predict the mortality of CS.

Methods and results

Records of critically ill patients with CS were identified from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. A multivariate Cox regression model was employed to adjust for imbalances by incorporating parameters and potential confounders.A total of 551 critically ill patients with CS were enrolled for this analysis, including 207 with LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L and 344 with LDL-C ≥1.8 mmol/L. Results of multivariate Cox regression models found that higher concentration of LDL-C (LDL-C ≥1.8mmol/L) was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87; p=0.003) and 28-day mortality (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; p=0.002) LDL-C in patients with CS. Patients with LDL-C ≥1.8 mmol/L were independently associated with improved in-hospital survival (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.52, p<0.001) and 28-day survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.73, p=0.002) compared with patients with LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L. The impact of LDL-C on in-hospital mortality and 28-day mortality persisted in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and was not statistically significant in the non-ACS subgroup.

Conclusions

Our study observed that increased LDL-C level was related with improved survival in patients with CS, but not with improved outcomes in patients with uncomplicated ACS. The results need to be verified in randomised controlled trials.

SUBMITTER: Jin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8256757 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an important modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. It is unclear whether the percentage LDL-C lowering with pharmacotherapies differs on the basis of baseline LDL-C levels. To evaluate the association between baseline LDL-C levels and the percentage LDL-C reduction with a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 inhibitor. This secondary exploratory study analyzed data from 3 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (Aggrastat to Zocor-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 21 [A to Z-TIMI 21], Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial [IMPROVE-IT], and Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk [FOURIER]) of lipid-lowering therapies (statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 inhibitor) and included participants with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Analyses took place form April to October 2020. In A to Z-TIMI 21, 1:1 randomization to simvastatin, 40 mg, daily for 30 days followed by 80 mg daily thereafter vs placebo for 4 months followed by simvastatin, 20 mg, daily thereafter. In IMPROVE-IT, 1:1 randomization to ezetimibe, 10 mg, daily plus simvastatin, 40 mg, daily vs placebo plus simvastatin, 40 mg, daily. In FOURIER, 1:1 randomization to evolocumab, 140 mg, every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly vs matching placebo. The percentage LDL-C reduction at either 1 month (A to Z-TIMI 21, IMPROVE-IT) or 3 months (FOURIER) as a function of baseline LDL-C level. Data were modeled using a generalized linear regression model. A total of 3187 patients from A to Z-TIMI 21, 10 680 patients from IMPROVE-IT, and 25 847 patients from FOURIER were analyzed. There was a higher percentage reduction in LDL-C levels with evolocumab in patients with lower baseline LDL-C levels, ranging from 59.4% (95% CI, 59.1%-59.8%) in patients with a baseline LDL-C level of 130 mg/dL to 66.1% (95% CI, 65.6%-66.6%) in patients with a baseline LDL-C level of 70 mg/dL (P < .001). In contrast, across the same range of baseline LDL-C level, there was a more modest difference for simvastatin (44.6% [95% CI, 43.9%-45.2%] vs 47.8% [95% CI, 46.4%-49.2%]; P < .001) and minimal difference with ezetimibe (25.0% [95% CI, 23.3%-26.6%] vs 26.2% [95% CI, 24.2%-28.1%]; P = .007). The percentage LDL-C reduction with statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibition is not attenuated in patients starting with lower baseline LDL-C levels and is 6.6% greater for PCSK9 inhibition. These data are encouraging for the use of intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy even for patients with lower LDL-C levels.