Dataset Information

NAFLD fibrosis score is correlated with PCSK9 and improves outcome prediction of PCSK9 in patients with chest pain: a cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The risk of liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) can be easily evaluated by noninvasive scoring systems, of which the NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) is the most commonly used. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), a new predictor of cardiovascular events, has been reported to be associated with cardiovascular outcomes and NAFLD. However, the relationship of NFS with PCSK9 and their prognostic abilities in cardiovascular risks are unknown.

Methods

A total of 2008 hospitalized subjects who had chest pain without lipid-lowering therapy were consecutively included. Baseline clinical data were collected, and the NFS was calculated. The circulating PCSK9 concentration was determined by enzyme immunoassay. The major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) occurrences were recorded in the follow-up period. Associations of PCSK9 concentration with NFS were examined. All of the participants were categorized into three groups according to NFS levels and were further stratified by PCSK9 tertiles to evaluate the MACEs.

Results

158 (7.87%) MACEs were observed during a mean of 3.2 years of follow-up. NFS levels were independently related to higher PCSK9 levels according to multivariable linear regression analysis. Furthermore, elevated PCSK9 and NFS concentrations were respectively associated with increased MACE incidence in multivariable Cox regression models. When combining NFS status with PCSK9 tertiles as a stratifying factor, patients with intermediate-high NFS and high PCSK9 levels had higher risks of events than those with low NFS and low PCSK9 levels.

Conclusions

This study revealed for the first time that NFS is positively related to PCSK9 and that the combination of NFS and PCSK9 greatly increased the risk of MACEs in patients with chest pain, providing a potential link between NFS and PCSK9 for predicting cardiovascular events.

SUBMITTER: Peng J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8742334 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice. DESIGN:Systematic review of diagnostic studies. DATA SOURCES:Medline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018. STUDY SELECTION:Studies that assessed CDRs for intermittent-type chest pain and for rule out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) applicable in general practice, thus not relying on advanced laboratory, computer or diagnostic testing. REVIEW METHODS:Reviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)), independently and in duplicate. RESULTS:Eight studies comprising five CDRs met the inclusion criteria. Three CDRs are designed for rule out of coronary disease in intermittent-type chest pain (Gencer rule, Marburg Heart Score, INTERCHEST), and two for rule out of ACS (Grijseels rule, Bruins Slot rule). Studies that examined the Marburg Heart Score had the highest methodological quality with consistent sensitivity (86%-91%), specificity (61%-81%) and positive (23%-35%) and negative (97%-98%) predictive values (PPV and NPV). The diagnostic performance of Gencer (PPV: 20%-34%, NPV: 95%-99%) and INTERCHEST (PPV: 35%-43%, NPV: 96%-98%) appear comparable, but requires further validation. The Marburg Heart Score was more sensitive in detecting coronary disease than the clinical judgement of the general practitioner. The performance of CDRs that focused on rule out of ACS were: Grijseels rule (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 37%, PPV: 57%, NPV: 82%) and Bruins Slot (sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 10%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 92%). Compared with clinical judgement, the Bruins Slot rule appeared to be safer than clinical judgement alone, but the study was limited in sample size. CONCLUSIONS:In general practice, there is currently no clinical decision aid that can safely rule out ACS. For intermittent chest pain, several rules exist, of which the Marburg Heart Score has been most extensively tested and appears to outperform clinical judgement alone.