Cargando…

Atherogenic index of plasma and coronary artery disease: A systematic review

Various studies suggest that the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) is associated with the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) in different clinical scenarios. This review aimed to synthesize evidence of the association between AIP values and CAD. A literature search was carried out on four databas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ulloque-Badaracco, Juan R., Hernandez-Bustamante, Enrique A., Alarcon-Braga, Esteban A., Mosquera-Rojas, Melany D., Campos-Aspajo, Alvaro, Salazar-Valdivia, Farley E., Valdez-Cornejo, Valeria A., Benites-Zapata, Vicente A., Herrera-Añazco, Percy, Valenzuela-Rodríguez, Germán, Hernandez, Adrian V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: De Gruyter 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9730543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36561845
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/med-2022-0590
Descripción
Sumario:Various studies suggest that the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) is associated with the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) in different clinical scenarios. This review aimed to synthesize evidence of the association between AIP values and CAD. A literature search was carried out on four databases, namely, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid-Medline. A handsearch was performed on preprint repositories (MedRxiv and Research Square). The effect measurements were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). For the quantitative synthesis, we employed a random-effects model. We analyzed 14 articles (with 40,902 participants) from seven different countries. The quantitative analysis revealed that an increase in one unit of AIP was associated with higher odds of developing CAD (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.65–2.69; P < 0.001; I (2) = 98%). We conducted subgroup analyses of Chinese (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.40–2.56; P < 0.001) and non-Chinese studies (OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.42–4.42; P < 0.001). The sensitivity analysis by risk of bias continued to demonstrate an association, and the heterogeneity remained unchanged (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.33–2.31; P < 0.001; I (2) = 98%). Higher AIP values were associated with higher odds of developing CAD.