Evidence Hub

The predictive value of cumulative atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) for cardiovascular outcomes: a prospective community-based cohort study

Zhihao Liu, Long Zhang, Leyi Wang, Kaiyin Li, Fangfang Fan, J. Jia, Jian-Ping Li, Yan Zhang

Cardiovascular Diabetology, 2024

3,820 participants · 72 citations

Abstract

Atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) has been reported as a critical predictor on the risks and clinical outcomes of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), and we aimed to explore the potential predictive value of cumulative AIP on major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular mortality. A large-scale community-based prospective cohort was established from December 2011 to April 2012 and followed up in May to July 2014. The endpoint outcomes were obtained before December 31, 2021. AIP was calculated as the logarithmically transformed ratio of triglyceride (TG) to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) and cumulative AIP was the average value of AIP in 2012 and 2014. An overall of 3820 participants (36.1% male) with mean (SD) age of 59.1 (8.7) years, were enrolled. Within a median follow-up of 7.5 years, a total of 371 (9.7%) participants were documented with MACE, 293 (7.7%) participants developed stroke, 68 (1.8%) suffered from MI and 65 (1.7%) experienced cardiovascular mortality. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed significant associations between cumulative AIP and the risk of MACE, stroke and MI. Regarding MACE, individuals with one higher unit of cumulative AIP were associated with 75% increment on the incidence of going through MACE in fully adjusted model, while categorizing participants into four groups, individuals in the highest cumulative AIP quartile were significantly associated with increased incidence of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 3,820 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free