↓ Skip to main content

Is non-HDL-cholesterol a better predictor of long-term outcome in patients after acute myocardial infarction compared to LDL-cholesterol? : a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Is non-HDL-cholesterol a better predictor of long-term outcome in patients after acute myocardial infarction compared to LDL-cholesterol? : a retrospective study
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12872-016-0450-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wanwarang Wongcharoen, Satjatham Sutthiwutthichai, Siriluck Gunaparn, Arintaya Phrommintikul

Abstract

It has recently been shown that non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) may be a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Based on known ethic differences in lipid parameters and cardiovascular risk prediction, we sought to study the predictability of attaining non-HDL-C target and long-term major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) in Thai patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared to attaining LDL-C target. We retrospectively obtained the data of all patients who were admitted at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai hospital due to AMI during 2006-2013. The mean non-HDL-C and LDL-C during long-term follow-up were used to predict MACE at each time point. The patients were classified as target attainment if non-HDL-C <100 mg/dl and/or LDL-C <70 mg/dl. The MACE was defined as combination of all-cause death, nonfatal coronary event and nonfatal stroke. During mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 1.6 years among 868 patients after AMI, 34.4% achieved non-HDL-C target, 23.7% achieved LDL-C target and 21.2% experienced MACEs. LDL-C and non-HDL-C were directly compared in Cox regression model. Compared with non-HDL-C <100 mg/dl, patients with non-HDL-C of >130 mg/dl had higher incidence of MACEs (HR 3.15, 95% CI 1.46-6.80, P = 0.003). Surprisingly, LDL-C >100 mg/dl was associated with reduced risk of MACE as compared to LDL <70 mg/dl (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.98, p = 0.046) after direct pairwise comparison with non-HDL-C level. Non-attaining non-HDL-C goal predicted MACE at long-term follow-up after AMI whereas non-attaining LDL-C goal was not associated with the higher risk. Therefore, non-HDL-C may be a more suitable target of dyslipidemia treatment than LDL-C in patients after AMI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 21 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,796,471
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#740
of 1,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,113
of 421,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#26
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,628 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 421,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.