Scholarlink

Background <p>This study aimed to compare the prognostic value of the liver fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index with the fibrosis-5 (FIB-5) index in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> Methods <p>A total of 851 consecutive patients were included retrospectively. The association between FIB-4, FIB-5 and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) was analyzed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to compare the predictive performance of FIB-4 and FIB-5. ROC curves were also compared for all patients, as well as subgroups aged &lt; 65 and ≥ 65&#xa0;years, to evaluate the prognostic power of both indices.</p> Results <p>The mean age was 63.9 ± 10&#xa0;years, and 76.0% of the patients were male. The mean follow-up duration was 39.8 ± 18.7. FIB-5 level was significantly lower in patients who experienced MACEs compared to those who did not. In pairwise analyses, FIB-5 demonstrated superior prognostic performance over FIB-4 in patients less than 65&#xa0;years of age, whereas no significant differences were observed in the overall cohort or in patients aged 65&#xa0;years or older. After adjustment in Cox regression analysis, FIB-5 remained an independent predictor of MACEs.</p> Conclusion <p>Our study showed that FIB-5 index was better and useful predictor of MACEs in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention regardless of age.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of Prognostic Value of FIB-4 with FIB-5 in STEMI Patients Undergoing Primary PCI

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月10日

查看全文
  • Bektas Murat,
  • Fatih Aydın,
  • Fatih Enes Durmaz,
  • Barıs Ozden,
  • Selda Murat

摘要

Background

This study aimed to compare the prognostic value of the liver fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index with the fibrosis-5 (FIB-5) index in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods

A total of 851 consecutive patients were included retrospectively. The association between FIB-4, FIB-5 and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) was analyzed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to compare the predictive performance of FIB-4 and FIB-5. ROC curves were also compared for all patients, as well as subgroups aged < 65 and ≥ 65 years, to evaluate the prognostic power of both indices.

Results

The mean age was 63.9 ± 10 years, and 76.0% of the patients were male. The mean follow-up duration was 39.8 ± 18.7. FIB-5 level was significantly lower in patients who experienced MACEs compared to those who did not. In pairwise analyses, FIB-5 demonstrated superior prognostic performance over FIB-4 in patients less than 65 years of age, whereas no significant differences were observed in the overall cohort or in patients aged 65 years or older. After adjustment in Cox regression analysis, FIB-5 remained an independent predictor of MACEs.

Conclusion

Our study showed that FIB-5 index was better and useful predictor of MACEs in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention regardless of age.