High-sensitivity C-reactive protein predicts 10-year cardiovascular outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention
Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) during 10-year follow-up after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: Between April and October 2002, hsCRP was measured in 468 all-comer patients who underwent PCI with sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction at 10-year follow-up. Kaplan-Meier event curves displayed ongoing divergence of the hsCRP groups (hsCRP <1 mg/L: 14.7% vs. 1-3 mg/L: 31.1% vs. >3 mg/L: 43.1%). After adjustment for established cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentation in a Cox regression model, higher CRP levels were associated with a higher incidence of the composite endpoint (>3 mg/L vs. <1 mg/L: HR 2.87, 95% CI: 1.69-4.87, p<0.001; 1-3 mg/L vs. <1 mg/L: HR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.31-4.03, p=0.004). Although adding hsCRP to a prediction model containing conventional cardiovascular risk factors did not significantly improve discriminatory power (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.71 to 0.73, p=0.56), hsCRP was able to improve risk classification (net reclassification index=0.40, p=<0.001). Conclusions: In patients undergoing PCI, higher CRP levels at the time of the procedure are predictive for 10-year mortality and myocardial infarction. High-sensitivity CRP may be a useful biomarker to improve further risk assessment in patients undergoing PCI.
|Keywords||C-reactive protein, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Prognosis|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJY15M07_04, hdl.handle.net/1765/96074|
Oemrawsingh, R.M, Cheng, J.M, Akkerhuis, K.M, Kardys, I, Degertekin, M, van Geuns, R.J.M, … van Domburg, R.T. (2016). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein predicts 10-year cardiovascular outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention, 12(3), 345–351. doi:10.4244/EIJY15M07_04