↓ Skip to main content

Prognostic value of fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio combined with coronary calcification score in patients with suspected coronary artery disease

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prognostic value of fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio combined with coronary calcification score in patients with suspected coronary artery disease
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12872-023-03193-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xin-Xin Tian, Jun-Yi Luo, Fen Liu, Ya-Jing Qiu, Fan Luo, Lu Zeng, Zhuo-Ran Zhang, Yi-Ning Yang, Xiao-Mei Li

Abstract

The aim of this work was to evaluate the predictive value of FAR combined with CACS for MACCEs. The fibrinogen-albumin-ratio (FAR), a novel biomarker of inflammation, is associated with the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary calcification score (CACS) is associated with the severity of coronary stenosis and is closely related to the prognosis of CAD patients. What is the prognostic value of FAR in patients with chest pain, which has not been reported. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between CACS and FAR and their impact on prognosis in patients with suspected CAD. We used information from 12,904 individuals who had coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) for chest pain and tracked down any significant adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). The following formula was used to calculate FAR: fibrinogen (g/L)/albumin (g/L). Patients were separated into groups with greater levels of FAR (FAR-H) and lower levels of FAR (FAR-L) in accordance with the ideal cut-off value of FAR for MACCEs prediction. In addition, patients were divided into three groups based on their CACS scores (CACS ≤ 100, 100 < CACS ≤ 400, and CACS > 400). 4946 patients [62(55-71) years, 64.4% male] were ultimately enrolled in the present study. During follow-up, a total of 234 cases (4.7%) of MACCEs were documented. Linear regression analysis results showed that CACS (R2 = 0.004, Standard β = 0.066, P < 0.001) was positively associated with FAR in patients with chest pain.Compared to ones with FAR-L, FAR-H had an increased risk for MACCEs (adjusted HR 1.371(1.053-1.786) P = 0.019). Multivariate Cox regression showed that age (adjusted HR 1.015 95% CI 1.001-1.028;p = 0.03), FAR (adjusted HR 1.355 95% CI 1.042-1.763;p = 0.023),FBG (adjusted HR 1.043 95% CI 1.006-1.083;p = 0.024) and CACS (adjusted HR 1.470 95% CI 1.250-1.727;p < 0.001) were the independent risk factors for MACCEs. The FAR and CACS significantly improved MACCEs risk stratification, contributing to substantial net reclassification improvement ( NRI 0.122, 95% CI 0.054-0.198, P < 0.001) and integrated discrimination improvement(IDI 0.011, 95% CI 0.006-0.017, P < 0.001). FAR was an independent risk factor for MACCEs. The results showed that CACS was positively associated with FAR in patients with suspected CAD. A higher level of FAR and heavier coronary calcification burden was associated with worse outcomes among patients with suspected CAD. FAR and CACS improved the risk identification of patients with suspected CAD, leading to a significant reclassification of MACCEs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 20%
Unknown 4 80%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 20%
Unknown 4 80%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2023.
All research outputs
#15,831,100
of 23,524,722 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#878
of 1,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,631
of 241,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#13
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,524,722 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,718 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.